Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:01 AM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (John Anderson)
2. 02:00 AM - Re: Re: Camera Mount (Torgeir Mortensen)
3. 04:03 AM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Dave)
4. 05:16 AM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Noel Loveys)
5. 05:17 AM - Re: Warp drive hub. (Clem Nichols)
6. 05:26 AM - prop performance (Clem Nichols)
7. 05:34 AM - Re: Warp drive hub. (Dave)
8. 05:36 AM - Re: Re: Camera Mount (Aerobatics@aol.com)
9. 05:40 AM - Re: Warp drive hub. (Clifford Begnaud)
10. 06:50 AM - Re: Warp drive hub. (Michel Verheughe)
11. 06:51 AM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Lowell Fitt)
12. 06:59 AM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Lowell Fitt)
13. 07:40 AM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Dan Billingsley)
14. 07:42 AM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (kurt schrader)
15. 07:49 AM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (kurt schrader)
16. 07:59 AM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (kurt schrader)
17. 08:27 AM - Re: Warp drive hub. (kurt schrader)
18. 08:45 AM - FW: [avid_flyer] Arlington (ron schick)
19. 08:47 AM - Re: prop performance (kurt schrader)
20. 09:24 AM - Re: 582 Warp Prop Diameter ()
21. 09:33 AM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Randy Daughenbaugh)
22. 10:40 AM - Re: prop performance (Rex Hefferan)
23. 10:46 AM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Dan Billingsley)
24. 11:28 AM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Fox5flyer)
25. 11:28 AM - Re: Warp drive hub. (Clem Nichols)
26. 12:18 PM - Re: Warp drive hub. (Lowell Fitt)
27. 02:02 PM - Taiwan tyres (Michel Verheughe)
28. 02:09 PM - Re: Warp drive hub. (John Anderson)
29. 02:10 PM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Rexster)
30. 02:23 PM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Dan Billingsley)
31. 03:20 PM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Lowell Fitt)
32. 04:51 PM - Re: Taiwan tyres (Jose M. Toro)
33. 05:19 PM - Re: re- Lock Haven Fly-in (Daniel Aller)
34. 05:24 PM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (kurt schrader)
35. 05:32 PM - Re: Taiwan tyres (kurt schrader)
36. 05:56 PM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Larry Huntley)
37. 06:03 PM - Re: Warp drive hub. (kurt schrader)
38. 09:19 PM - Re: Warp drive hub. (Randy Daughenbaugh)
39. 10:53 PM - Re: Warp drive hub. (QSS)
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: | The "Claw" tie down |
--- 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 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Camera Mount |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Im very sorry Dave, my apology.
The one this was meant for is "dominique".
Torgeir.
do not archive.
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:43:48 EDT, <Aerobatics@aol.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The "Claw" tie down |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Hey guys,
I did a little search for these items that are talked about and here they
are.
http://www.airtimemfg.com/
The "Kit" (recommended) is $10 more ($90.00) (plus $5 shipping) (kits
consist of the "set", plus three 5/16" high quality 8' ropes, and a storage
bag
The Claw
http://www.tagpilotsupply.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=940
$92.97
a.. Compact storage bag and contents weigh only 8 pounds
a.. These Airplane Tie Downs Anchor System includes: Bag that is easy to
carry and store that contains: 3 Anchors; 9 spikes; 1 hammer; 20-ft rope
Now here is what some use on the grass strip here, these are very simular to
the ones we buy at our local farm store for about 5$ each.
http://www.karlkuemmerling.com/prod15.htm
That chart should holding power of up to 4000 lbs each. I think if one was
to use a lighter material llike Titanium or the 5052 alum that might be an
option ? even a better option for us float flyers is too beach your plane
and fill the floats with water. :)
The screw in ones like for dogs etc I think just break off to easy although
better than nothing. I would suggest that the end be welded so that it
cannot stretch out the triangular handle. Plus i have seen them pull out of
ground when it gets wet as they only sink in about a foot or so.
I think someone mentioned the 2 x 4 on wing. I have done that and that
works well but you cannot always have 2x 4s in your fox unless you stap then
on top of your floats :)
Dave
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 6:35 PM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
> 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"
> <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>> >
>> > 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"
>> >> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>> >>
>> >> 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 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | The "Claw" tie down |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
I think there is something here I'm missing. With the kitfox why not just
fold the wings and wrap the plane in a light weight tarp?? Would be
cheaper for the field too.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Larry Huntley
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 11:05 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The "Claw" tie down
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Larry Huntley" <asq1@adelphia.net>
>
> 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 <bnn@nethere.com>
> >
> > 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 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Warp drive hub. |
MessageRandy:
Yes, I would be amazed also. I wonder if anyone else in the group has
had a similar experience. Kirk and Michel, you're our physicists and
theoreticians. Any thoughts on explaining Randy's observation?
Clem Nichols
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Daughenbaugh
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:11 PM
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
.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clem
Nichols
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 8:24 PM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub.
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
From: QSS
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub.
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 -----
From: Clem Nichols
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub.
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 -----
From: wingsdown
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 9:17 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub.
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-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of QSS
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 12:19 AM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub.
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 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | prop performance |
Kurt:
Sorry for getting your name wrong. I would still like to hear your
thoughts on shortening the prop giving both better climb rate and cruise
speed.
Clem Nichols
Do Not Archive
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Warp drive hub. |
MessageOn Props,
Perhaps Paul Seehafer could post his findings on his IVO prop. his 912
Amphib cruises well over 100 mph he told me and is really quite amazing.
I think if i remember correctly he said he shortened the prop a bit as
well.
Paul are you out there?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Clem Nichols
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub.
Randy:
Yes, I would be amazed also. I wonder if anyone else in the group has
had a similar experience. Kirk and Michel, you're our physicists and
theoreticians. Any thoughts on explaining Randy's observation?
Clem Nichols
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Daughenbaugh
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:11 PM
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
.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clem
Nichols
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 8:24 PM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub.
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
From: QSS
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub.
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 -----
From: Clem Nichols
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub.
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 -----
From: wingsdown
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 9:17 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub.
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-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of QSS
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 12:19 AM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub.
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 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Camera Mount |
no prob :-)
Dave
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Warp drive hub. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Here's a slightly different example of some prop experimentation....
On our previous model 5 with the 912 xtra we had the 72" "wide" blade warp
drive prop. We normally would set the pitch for take-off/climb which
resulted in too little pitch for a good cruise. We borrowed some tapered
Warp drive blades that were 70". Cruise improved by about 7 knots and the
climb "rate" went up also, BUT, the climb angle was less. Many people look
only at climb rate and not climb angle. For a bush plane climb rate means
little, it's the angle of climb that is important for clearing obstacles.
The wide blades got us off the ground quicker and was much better at
clearing obstacles, the sacrifice was speed and climb "rate". For making
short field landings, the longer, wider blades were far superior as they
would create a lot of drag at idle which allowed for some steep descents.
As to why Randy got shorter take-offs with the shorter blades it's hard to
know for sure. It's possible that the blades at the longer length were just
beyond the maximum that the available torque of the engine could handle.
Maybe he just had the pitch set too high. But I wanted to throw in my 2
cents worth regarding the warp drive blades because I did quite a bit of
experimenting with the wide and long vs. narrow and short. Short answer is,
wide and long for bush work, short and narrow for cruise.
Best Regards,
Cliff
MessageRandy:
Yes, I would be amazed also. I wonder if anyone else in the group has had a
similar experience. Kirk and Michel, you're our physicists and
theoreticians. Any thoughts on explaining Randy's observation?
Clem Nichols
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Daughenbaugh
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:11 PM
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
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clem Nichols
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 8:24 PM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub.
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
From: QSS
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub.
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 -----
From: Clem Nichols
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub.
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 -----
From: wingsdown
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 9:17 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub.
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-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of QSS
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 12:19 AM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub.
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 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 |
|
> From: Clem Nichols [cnichols@scrtc.com]
> Kirk and Michel, you're our physicists and theoreticians. Any thoughts on explaining
> Randy's observation?
... what? What have you been smoking, Clem, I want some! :-) My only knowledge
about propellers is nearly 30 years old and only with yachts. I haven't a clue
why shortening a 72" prop to 70 would make both climb-out and cruise performance
better.
But thanks for the compliment, you really made my day! :-)
PS: My Jabiru prop is only 60" diameter, which at WOT (3,050 prop RPM) gives me
a tip moving at 285 m/s, well under the speed of the sound of 340 m/s
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The "Claw" tie down |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Kurt,
I always check the tent stakes at REI when I am there. They are light
weight, but usually only 8 or so inches long. That has never satisfied me
enough to try them.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 8:20 PM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> 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 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The "Claw" tie down |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Clem,
This is good insight. It is my understanding that many Alaska pilots will
tie down the wings and allow the tail to fly - essentially reducing lift. I
don't know how they anticipate the wind direction, though.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 10:15 PM
> 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. "
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The "Claw" tie down |
Lowell,
That's an interesting twist concerning the Alaska pilots. If that's true, I guess
they are figuring it's easier to replace the empenage vs. the wings? Common
sence to me says tie the thing down tight all the way around. This has been
a good thread to establish things that may or may not work...personally I will
take many of the suggestions and draw my own conclusions (as we all should),
but to leave the tail flopping in the breeze???
Dan
Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
Clem,
This is good insight. It is my understanding that many Alaska pilots will
tie down the wings and allow the tail to fly - essentially reducing lift. I
don't know how they anticipate the wind direction, though.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 10:15 PM
> 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. "
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The "Claw" tie down |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Lots of good ideas and sources coming out! :-)
I don't have any for my plane yet, so I am interested
too. My cargo straps double as tiedowns at airports
that have rings installed. Haven't left it out at any
others yet to need my own stakes. These straps are
not really sufficient for this anyway. No load rating
on them. Maybe 700-1000 lbs each. Just what I have
for now.
I had a screw in type used for tying down mobile homes
years ago. Used it for my german shepard. He bent it
right over on a side pull. These are only good for
straight pulls like the tree stakes from the farm
place. Some require side pull (with nails) and others
require straight pull (screw in).
Some farm types are never meant to be removed - be
careful.
Seems you almost need 2 different sets to handle the
soil types, soft or hard.
I saw a ship in Adak Alaska break twenty 8" ropes in a
strong wind once..... They had off loaded and were
high in the water. Imagine the force required to
break even one 8" line.
Like the 141's mentioned, we can generate a good deal
of lift in normal storm winds. An empty Fox might
lift off at 20-25 knots for you light builders.
Especially the taildraggers. Any wind above enough to
lift the weight is all against the ropes. Don't have
my calculator here, but enough wind to give you 3 G's
in a turn would put 2 G's worth on the ropes. That
could be 2-3000 lbs for us.
The wing wedges would help. 2x4's are hard to carry,
unless you use them when home.
I wonder if inflatable wedges tied to the wings every
2 feet would kill enough lift to make a good product?
If the wind is from the rear, your wing struts better
be stiff. Some in the north use 2x4's to brace the
struts for snow/wind loads.
We CAP prop guys have to tie down the prop too.
Anyone with a clutch that lets it free wheel has to.
Seat belts on the controls too?
Still listening.... So far I like the "airtime" ones
or some of your homebuilts better.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
--- Dave <dave@cfisher.com> wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I did a little search for these items that are
> talked about and here they are.
> http://www.airtimemfg.com/
> The "Kit" (recommended) is $10 more ($90.00) (plus
> $5 shipping) (kits
> consist of the "set", plus three 5/16" high quality
> 8' ropes, and a storage bag
>
> The Claw
>
http://www.tagpilotsupply.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=940
> $92.97
> a.. Compact storage bag and contents weigh only 8
> pounds
> a.. These Airplane Tie Downs Anchor System includes:
> Bag that is easy to
> carry and store that contains: 3 Anchors; 9 spikes;
> 1 hammer; 20-ft rope
>
> Now here is what some use on the grass strip here,
> these are very simular to
> the ones we buy at our local farm store for about 5$
> each.
> http://www.karlkuemmerling.com/prod15.htm
> That chart should holding power of up to 4000 lbs
> each. I think if one was
> to use a lighter material llike Titanium or the 5052
> alum that might be an
> option ? even a better option for us float flyers
> is too beach your plane
> and fill the floats with water. :)
>
> The screw in ones like for dogs etc I think just
> break off to easy although
> better than nothing. I would suggest that the end be
> welded so that it
> cannot stretch out the triangular handle. Plus i
> have seen them pull out of
> ground when it gets wet as they only sink in about a
> foot or so.
>
> I think someone mentioned the 2 x 4 on wing. I
> have done that and that
> works well but you cannot always have 2x 4s in your
> fox unless you stap then
> on top of your floats :)
>
> Dave
__________________________________________________
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The "Claw" tie down |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Thanks Lowell! I thought maybe the bigger tents might
do, but never looked for that purpose. Trying to save
a $ ya' know. Doesn't help if you have to buy 20 of
them and a lot of rope....
Kurt S.
--- Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Kurt,
>
> I always check the tent stakes at REI when I am
> there. They are light
> weight, but usually only 8 or so inches long. That
> has never satisfied me enough to try them.
>
> Lowell
__________________________________________________
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The "Claw" tie down |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
I agree - good point.
And the wind can change 135 degrees with frontal
passage, so how do they know?
Oh, ask the eskimos..... ;-) The dogs lay down.....
I'd put a long rope on the tail and not let it get
above level myself. Then carry a replacement tail
spring???
ponder, ponder.... Still learning.
And ducking. I am in Brazil. 5 minutes to the big
football game. Horns. Fireworks. Everything shuts
down. Everything! BANG! No sleep for night flyers.
Kurt S.
--- Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Clem,
>
> This is good insight. It is my understanding that
> many Alaska pilots will
> tie down the wings and allow the tail to fly -
> essentially reducing lift. I
> don't know how they anticipate the wind direction,
> though.
>
> Lowell
__________________________________________________
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: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Michel,
I thought you were the smart one.... Now what???
Well, theoritically the longer prop should be better
unless the tip speed gets too high. But then you have
the engine torque curve to consider too, not just the
prop. The best engine/prop efficiency combined is the
actual answer and testing often proves theory a bit
off. I'd go with test results over theory every time.
We need to borrow a large wind tunnel for a 100 hrs or
so to really out fox the Fox. Some blowing smoke
would clear things up. ????
I think low aspect ratio props are better, except at
low speed, as test results prove. ie, the thicker
cord prop good at lower speeds and thinner prop at
higher speeds, but again ya' gotta test them all.
I sure would like to do some prop testing on my own,
but that would cost a lot, unless I had a source for
each candidate and could return them. I don't think I
have the right prop, or maybe gear ratio for mine.
Too much loss.
Kurt S.
--- Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
> > From: Clem Nichols [cnichols@scrtc.com]
> > Kirk and Michel, you're our physicists and
> theoreticians. Any thoughts on explaining
> > Randy's observation?
>
> ... what? What have you been smoking, Clem, I want
> some! :-) My only knowledge about propellers is
> nearly 30 years old and only with yachts. I haven't
> a clue why shortening a 72" prop to 70 would make
> both climb-out and cruise performance better.
> But thanks for the compliment, you really made my
> day! :-)
>
> PS: My Jabiru prop is only 60" diameter, which at
> WOT (3,050 prop RPM) gives me a tip moving at 285
> m/s, well under the speed of the sound of 340 m/s
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
__________________________________________________
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | FW: [avid_flyer] Arlington |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "ron schick" <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
Saw this on the avid list and want to connect with as many names as I can.
Email off list with cell number and I'll call at the fly-in. Ron NbOr.
>From: "Frank Bryant" <seacamel@hotmail.com>
>To: avid_flyer@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [avid_flyer] Arlington
>Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 07:02:23 -0000
>
>Coming SOON... Lets all meet outside Forum tent "A" daily at 1300.
>Sounds like there will be a good turn out of Avideers there this
>year..........?
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: prop performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
No problem at all Clem. At least I am not Rex #4.
:-) We have a lot of members on the list and some
repeats. And my memory for names is probably the
worst here.
I save a lot of messages from you all too. This is
how I have learned all my life. Grab every scrap of
info that comes along.
There has to be more factors involved to answer this
other than just the prop. I have heard of it before
and I bet the prop manufacturer has worked out an
answer.
Props are made for an average usage. To match a
specific engine and plane some tweeking might help all
of them, and us. A 5% improvement is a lot for a
prop. This is even more. It obviously is giving more
thrust, but why? Is it prop or engine efficiency that
improved?
I know if I was there with Don S. years ago, I could
have picked out his slippage problem right off. Hard
to catch everything in an e-mail. Same with this prop
mod I expect. Need more info....
Kurt S.
P.S. Wish I was the "Consumer Reports" of KitFox's.
I enjoy testing and learning. Have to be satisfied
with the vicarious info from you all. :-) But isn't
this a good plane to do it with?
--- Clem Nichols <cnichols@scrtc.com> wrote:
> Kurt:
>
> Sorry for getting your name wrong. I would still
> like to hear your thoughts on shortening the prop
> giving both better climb rate and cruise speed.
>
> Clem Nichols
> Do Not Archive
__________________________________________________
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 582 Warp Prop Diameter |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: <dosmythe@cox.net>
Guy,
I had the 70" Warp with my 582 which was recommended by Warp. A couple years
ago I had a small prop strike and sent the prop back to Warp where they cut
off 1" to make it a 68". I did not see any noticeable performance difference
between the 70" and 68"
Don Smythe
---- Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
>
> 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 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: | The "Claw" tie down |
Dan,
That is not the way I read it. David said, (I paste here) "3 of the 7
airplanes that had damaged were tied down with the " Claw "" He doesn't
say how many planes on the field were using the "Claw".
I don't believe we yet have any data on the failure rate.
Randy
.
_____
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:37 PM
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 <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com> 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 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 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: prop performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex Hefferan" <gypsybee@copper.net>
HA HA! Kurtmeister - However, it IS curious. I am a member of several lists and
this is the only one where I might have this kind of confusion.
Rex of Florida/Colorado
do not archive
smokey_bear_40220(at)yaho wrote:
> No problem at all Clem. At least I am not Rex #4.
> :-)
--------
Rex
N740GP - M2/582
Colorado
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=43402#43402
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | The "Claw" tie down |
Randy,
Perhaps I'm not following what data you are looking for...the whole field? I
was simply indicating from the sample of 7 planes we were given.
Dan
Randy Daughenbaugh <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com> wrote:
Dan,
That is not the way I read it. David said, (I paste here) 3 of the 7 airplanes
that had damaged were tied down with the " Claw " He doesnt say how many
planes on the field were using the Claw.
I dont believe we yet have any data on the failure rate.
Randy
.
---------------------------------
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:37 PM
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 <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com> 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 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The "Claw" tie down |
Randy's probably right. However, the "Claw" people make some pretty
boastful claims about their product and I would think that with that,
none of them should have pulled out. However, that aside, my biggest
balk on them is the weight. Eight pounds is a lot of dead weight to
carry around when I'm usually trying to save ounces on other things.
Deke
>From: Randy Daughenbaugh
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 12:32 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: The "Claw" tie down
Dan,
That is not the way I read it. David said, (I paste here) "3 of the 7
airplanes that had damaged were tied down with the " Claw "" He
doesn't say how many planes on the field were using the "Claw".
I don't believe we yet have any data on the failure rate.
Randy
.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Billingsley
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:37 PM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
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 <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com> 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 Lowell's 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
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.
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Warp drive hub. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Kurt, Cliff, and others:
Thanks for your response.
Clem Nichols
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 7:39 AM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
> <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>
> Here's a slightly different example of some prop experimentation....
> On our previous model 5 with the 912 xtra we had the 72" "wide" blade warp
> drive prop. We normally would set the pitch for take-off/climb which
> resulted in too little pitch for a good cruise. We borrowed some tapered
> Warp drive blades that were 70". Cruise improved by about 7 knots and the
> climb "rate" went up also, BUT, the climb angle was less. Many people look
> only at climb rate and not climb angle. For a bush plane climb rate means
> little, it's the angle of climb that is important for clearing obstacles.
> The wide blades got us off the ground quicker and was much better at
> clearing obstacles, the sacrifice was speed and climb "rate". For making
> short field landings, the longer, wider blades were far superior as they
> would create a lot of drag at idle which allowed for some steep descents.
> As to why Randy got shorter take-offs with the shorter blades it's hard to
> know for sure. It's possible that the blades at the longer length were
> just
> beyond the maximum that the available torque of the engine could handle.
> Maybe he just had the pitch set too high. But I wanted to throw in my 2
> cents worth regarding the warp drive blades because I did quite a bit of
> experimenting with the wide and long vs. narrow and short. Short answer
> is,
> wide and long for bush work, short and narrow for cruise.
> Best Regards,
> Cliff
>
>
> MessageRandy:
>
> Yes, I would be amazed also. I wonder if anyone else in the group has had
> a
> similar experience. Kirk and Michel, you're our physicists and
> theoreticians. Any thoughts on explaining Randy's observation?
>
> Clem Nichols
> Do Not Archive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Randy Daughenbaugh
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:11 PM
> 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
>
>
> .
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clem Nichols
> Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 8:24 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub.
>
>
> 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
>
> From: QSS
>
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 7:38 PM
>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub.
>
>
> 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 -----
>
> From: Clem Nichols
>
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 8:45 AM
>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub.
>
>
> 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 -----
>
> From: wingsdown
>
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 9:17 AM
>
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub.
>
>
> 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-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of QSS
> Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 12:19 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub.
>
> 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 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Warp drive hub. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
I think you are right about cord vs. speed. There were a number of
ultralights and powered parachutes at the West Desert Fly-in, all powered by
Rotax 4 strole engines and the cord of the props on them was definitely
broader.
Also the two guys that went to the PowerFin prop here shortened theirs by
one inch and both got better performance on both climb and cruise, but with
the PowerFin, climb was clearly the winner. Sorry to report that both have
since gone to other props most recently with similar climb and better
cruise. One to the IVO and the other to the taper tip Warp.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 8:26 AM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> Michel,
>
> I thought you were the smart one.... Now what???
>
> Well, theoritically the longer prop should be better
> unless the tip speed gets too high. But then you have
> the engine torque curve to consider too, not just the
> prop. The best engine/prop efficiency combined is the
> actual answer and testing often proves theory a bit
> off. I'd go with test results over theory every time.
>
> We need to borrow a large wind tunnel for a 100 hrs or
> so to really out fox the Fox. Some blowing smoke
> would clear things up. ????
>
> I think low aspect ratio props are better, except at
> low speed, as test results prove. ie, the thicker
> cord prop good at lower speeds and thinner prop at
> higher speeds, but again ya' gotta test them all.
>
> I sure would like to do some prop testing on my own,
> but that would cost a lot, unless I had a source for
> each candidate and could return them. I don't think I
> have the right prop, or maybe gear ratio for mine.
> Too much loss.
>
> Kurt S.
>
> --- Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
>
>> > From: Clem Nichols [cnichols@scrtc.com]
>> > Kirk and Michel, you're our physicists and
>> theoreticians. Any thoughts on explaining
>> > Randy's observation?
>>
>> ... what? What have you been smoking, Clem, I want
>> some! :-) My only knowledge about propellers is
>> nearly 30 years old and only with yachts. I haven't
>> a clue why shortening a 72" prop to 70 would make
>> both climb-out and cruise performance better.
>> But thanks for the compliment, you really made my
>> day! :-)
>>
>> PS: My Jabiru prop is only 60" diameter, which at
>> WOT (3,050 prop RPM) gives me a tip moving at 285
>> m/s, well under the speed of the sound of 340 m/s
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michel
>>
>> do not archive
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
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 |
|
Hello Mark,
Here is the data about my new tyres:
Make: Duro
Origin: Taiwan
Size: 5.00 - 8
6 ply
Pressure 30 psi
Max load @ 19 MPH: 570 pounds
Diameter: 18.1"
Width: 5.4"
Weight: 5 pounds
... and the resulting test, compared to the Cheng Shin:
Pro: Much more control when taxiing. Turns much sharper at the end of
the runway.
Con: Much more bumpy ride! Bit fat Cheng Shin at 10 psi is much softer
than 6 ply at 30 psi.
Conclusion: Will have to get another pillow under my bottom! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
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 |
|
--- 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 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: | The "Claw" tie down |
Dan,
Randy is correct. You're indicating that ONLY seven planes were using
the claw and 3 failed. That's not what the stats were. There may have be
en hundreds using the claw, but three failed. There's a big difference h
ere.
Rex in Michigan
-- Dan Billingsley <dan@azshowersolutions.com> wrote:
Randy,Perhaps I'm not following what data you are looking for...the whol
e field? I was simply indicating from the sample of 7 planes we were giv
en. Dan Randy Daughenbaugh <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com> wrote:Dan,That is not
the way I read it. David said, (I paste here) =933 of the 7 airplanes
that had damaged were tied down with the " Claw "=94 He doesn=92t say
how many planes on the field were using the =93Claw=94. I don=92t believ
e we yet have any data on the failure rate. Randy . From: own
er-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@mat
ronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:37 PM
is thread indicated 3 out of 7 planes that were using the Claw failed. S
ignificant in my book...however, in reading all of these posts one can g
et a flavor for what works...etc. The nature of the ground plays a big p
art.Dan
Randy Daughenbaugh <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com> wrote:David, (Or others),The
data point that is missing here is how many planes were tied down with t
he 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 pla
nes there were using the =93Claw=94, the failure rate drops to a much mo
re reasonable 3%. Because the claw is relatively new, I suspect that not
very many were using it. Can anybody provide some insight here? My fi
rst impression of the claw, based on advertisements, was good. But I t
hink I like Lowell=92s 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 McCo
rmick
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 12:17 PM
Journey Fly-In at LockHaven, Pennsylvania ( LHV ) we had a severe thund
erstorm 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.
<html><P>Dan,</P>
<P> Randy is correct. You're indicating that ONLY seven plane
s were using the claw and 3 failed. That's not what the stats were. Ther
e may have been hundreds using the claw, but three failed. There's a big
difference here.</P>
<P>Rex in Michigan</P>
<P><BR><BR>-- Dan Billingsley <dan@azshowersolutions.c
om> wrote:<BR></P>
<DIV>Randy,</DIV>
<DIV>Perhaps I'm not following what data you are looking for...the whole
field? I was simply indicating from the <U>sample</U> of 7 planes we we
re given. </DIV>
<DIV>Dan</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><B><I>Randy Daughenbaugh <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com></I></B> wrote
:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<META content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered)" name=Generator>
<DIV class=Section1>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN st
yle="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Dan,</SPAN></FO
NT></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN st
yle="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">That is not the
way I read it. David said, (I paste here) =93</SPAN></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial
">3 of the 7 airplanes that had damaged were tied down with the " Claw "
=94 He doesn=92t say how many planes on the field were using
the =93Claw=94.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-S
IZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-S
IZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I don=92t believe we yet have any data on
the failure rate.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-S
IZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-S
IZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Randy</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN st
yle="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN></FONT>&
nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoAutoSig><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=blue size
=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: blue">. &nb
sp; </SPAN></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN st
yle="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN></FONT>&
nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<HR tabIndex=-1 align=center width="100%" SIZE=3>
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FO
NT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">From:</SPAN></FON
T></B><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-
FAMILY: Tahoma"> owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-ki
tfox-list-server@matronics.com] <B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">On
Behalf Of </SPAN></B>Dan Billingsley<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: b
old">Sent:</SPAN></B> Monday, June 26, 2006 9:37 PM<BR><B><SPAN style=
"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> kitfox-list@matronics.com<BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> RE: Kitfox-List: The "C
law" tie down</SPAN></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN sty
le="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN sty
le="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Randy,</SPAN></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN sty
le="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The first post of this thread indicated 3 out of
7 planes that were using the Claw failed. Significant in my book...howev
er, in reading all of these posts one can get a flavor for what works...
etc. The nature of the ground plays a big part.</SPAN></FONT></DIV></DIV
>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN sty
le="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Dan<BR><BR><B><I><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold
; FONT-STYLE: italic">Randy Daughenbaugh <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com></S
PAN></I></B> wrote:</SPAN></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORD
ER-TOP: medium none; MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; PADDING-LEFT: 2pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM:
5pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; MARGIN-LEFT: 2.45pt; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 1pt
solid; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN st
yle="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">David, (O
r others),</SPAN></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN st
yle="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The data point
that is missing here is how many planes were tied down with the Claw?&nb
sp; 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%.</SPAN></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN sty
le="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN st
yle="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Because the cla
w is relatively new, I suspect that not very many were using it. C
an anybody provide some insight here? My first impression of the c
law, based on advertisements, was good. But I think I like L
owell=92s design better.</SPAN></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN sty
le="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN st
yle="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Sorry to be so
late coming to this thread.</SPAN></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN sty
le="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN st
yle="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Randy</SPAN></F
ONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN sty
le="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=blue size=
3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: blue">.
</SPAN></FONT></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN sty
le="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<HR tabIndex=-1 align=center width="100%" SIZE=3>
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FO
NT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">From:</SPAN></FON
T></B><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-
FAMILY: Tahoma"> owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-ki
tfox-list-server@matronics.com] <B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">On
Behalf Of </SPAN></B>David McCormick<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: b
old">Sent:</SPAN></B> Sunday, June 25, 2006 12:17 PM<BR><B><SPAN style=
"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> kitfox-list@matronics.com<BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Kitfox-List: The "Claw"
tie down</SPAN></FONT></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN sty
le="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-S
IZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">On Thursday at the Sentemental Journey Fl
y-In at LockHaven, Pennsylvania ( LHV ) we had a severe thunderstorm and
at the time there were around 180 lite aircraft tied down on the airfie
ld. 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 Kitf
ox was tied down with screw in type tie downs.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN sty
le="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></FONT> </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
</html>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | The "Claw" tie down |
You are right...sorry Randy. Was looking at it sideways I suppose or misunderstood.
Brain cramps...gotta love it.
Dan
Rexster <runwayrex@juno.com> wrote:
Dan,
Randy is correct. You're indicating that ONLY seven planes were using the claw
and 3 failed. That's not what the stats were. There may have been hundreds
using the claw, but three failed. There's a big difference here.
Rex in Michigan
-- Dan Billingsley <dan@azshowersolutions.com> wrote:
Randy,
Perhaps I'm not following what data you are looking for...the whole field? I
was simply indicating from the sample of 7 planes we were given.
Dan
Randy Daughenbaugh <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com> wrote:
Dan,
That is not the way I read it. David said, (I paste here) 3 of the 7 airplanes
that had damaged were tied down with the " Claw " He doesnt say how many
planes on the field were using the Claw.
I dont believe we yet have any data on the failure rate.
Randy
.
---------------------------------
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:37 PM
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 <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com> 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 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: The "Claw" tie down |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
I don't know about failure rates, but, the Claw I saw looked to have cast
aluminum arms - although they may have been forged. The documentation
refers to it as aircraft grade aluminum. I wouldn't trust any part of my
airplane to a casting - engine excepted. One broken arm is the red flag for
me. I pretty much wouldn't care how many Claws were out there, the fact
that one broke definitely gives me pause. Bend - OK, Pulled out - maybe
OK, but broke under a Cub ??? The whole idea of multiple spikes speaks to
an attempt to attach the tiedown firmly to the ground. In my mind that
should be the weak point. If the spikes stay in the ground, but the
attachment to the airplane fails, the tiedown fails. Someone mentioned the
rope / strap and the need for strength there.
The ACS catalogue mentions a "life time guarantee". It makes me wonder what
that is all about. Other sites refer to a "Limited life time warrantee".
My guess is that the Cub owner and maybe others have contacted the Claw
folks to see what the guarantee means.
It is interesting that the manufacturer claims a "combined" 3600 lb holding
power, however Sporty's mentions it was tested to 480 lbs, individually.
Sure makes me wonder?
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 2:08 PM
Dan,
Randy is correct. You're indicating that ONLY seven planes were using the
claw and 3 failed. That's not what the stats were. There may have been
hundreds using the claw, but three failed. There's a big difference here.
Rex in Michigan
-- Dan Billingsley <dan@azshowersolutions.com> wrote:
Randy,Perhaps I'm not following what data you are looking for...the whole
field? I was simply indicating from the sample of 7 planes we were given.
Dan Randy Daughenbaugh <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com> wrote:Dan,That is not the way
I read it. David said, (I paste here) "3 of the 7 airplanes that had
damaged were tied down with the " Claw "" He doesn't say how many planes
on the field were using the "Claw". I don't believe we yet have any data on
the failure rate. Randy . From:
owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:37 PM
is 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 <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com> 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 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
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
| 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: Taiwan tyres |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Michel:
Try less pressure. With the right pressure, those
tires must work.
Jose
--- Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
> Hello Mark,
>
> Here is the data about my new tyres:
> Make: Duro
> Origin: Taiwan
> Size: 5.00 - 8
> 6 ply
> Pressure 30 psi
> Max load @ 19 MPH: 570 pounds
> Diameter: 18.1"
> Width: 5.4"
> Weight: 5 pounds
>
> ... and the resulting test, compared to the Cheng
> Shin:
> Pro: Much more control when taxiing. Turns much
> sharper at the end of
> the runway.
> Con: Much more bumpy ride! Bit fat Cheng Shin at 10
> psi is much softer
> than 6 ply at 30 psi.
>
> Conclusion: Will have to get another pillow under my
> bottom! :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
__________________________________________________
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: re- Lock Haven Fly-in |
David McCormick and Ben Baltrusaitis,
Thanks for getting back to me,and for the invite .I am looking forward
to meeting all you Kitfox drivers! I will see you the first opportunity
either at the EAA meeting 8N8 or where your based N13 or P96. Will be in
touch.Dan Aller 724 858 9981
----- Original Message -----
From: David McCormick
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 10:14 PM
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 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The "Claw" tie down |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Maybe I missed it. Did they just pull out, or did
they fail and break? Soft earth or weak parts?
I agree with the weight problem and also it looks like
they take up a good bit of room.
Kurt S.
--- Fox5flyer <morid@northland.lib.mi.us> wrote:
> Randy's probably right. However, the "Claw" people
> make some pretty boastful claims about their product
> and I would think that with that, none of them
> should have pulled out. However, that aside, my
> biggest balk on them is the weight. Eight pounds is
> a lot of dead weight to carry around when I'm
> usually trying to save ounces on other things.
> Deke
__________________________________________________
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Taiwan tyres |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Michel,
It looks like the bead at the wheel is the widest part
of the tire now. Is that correct? If so, the
sidewall flex is limited and will make them ride
harder.
Do you need 30 psi?
I saw it was warmer by you than in London. How is the
engine cooling working out flying in the hot weather?
Kurt S.
> --- Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
.........................
> > Con: Much more bumpy ride! Bit fat Cheng Shin at
> 10 psi is much softer than 6 ply at 30 psi.
> >
> > Conclusion: Will have to get another pillow under
> my bottom! :-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Michel
__________________________________________________
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The "Claw" tie down |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Larry Huntley" <asq1@adelphia.net>
The ones I saw just plucked a disc of dirt out of the wet,soft ground.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 8:23 PM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> Maybe I missed it. Did they just pull out, or did
> they fail and break? Soft earth or weak parts?
>
> I agree with the weight problem and also it looks like
> they take up a good bit of room.
>
> Kurt S.
>
> --- Fox5flyer <morid@northland.lib.mi.us> wrote:
>
>> Randy's probably right. However, the "Claw" people
>> make some pretty boastful claims about their product
>> and I would think that with that, none of them
>> should have pulled out. However, that aside, my
>> biggest balk on them is the weight. Eight pounds is
>> a lot of dead weight to carry around when I'm
>> usually trying to save ounces on other things.
>> Deke
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Those are the blades I have John.
Trying to get my mind on topic again to think this in
debth. Not always easy these days.
Wider blades grip air, like all WX tires grip the
pavement. Narrow blades more like dragster tires.
You get a better bite with the wider blades from the
start = more static thrust and less slippage. But the
narrow blades come into their own as you speed up and
allow the engine to spool up better from the start.
The wider ones should run more draggy at higher speeds
and, as was said, for descent and landing.
If your tires grip and not slip, you need a lower
gear. If your prop grips from the start, you use less
pitch to keep RPM's up. Less pitch means the wide
cord blades will run out of pitch sooner in cruise.
Fixed pitch would theoritically like the narrow
blades. But if you have a cockpit adjustable prop,
the wider blades might be better?
Less diameter should mean some more slip too. Less
efficiency on the same pitch and rpm, but maybe allows
more HP from the motor..... You'd need to add a
little pitch for the reduced diameter, so it should be
less static thrust and maybe a slight plus in cruise.
I just cant see enough gain from reduced diameter to
equate to that big a gain in performance from diameter
alone. Unless there is more to the story, I'd think
the blade cord change was the bigger factor.
Again I have to yield to testing.
I need to static thrust test my plane some day too.
Lance claimed over 700 lbs of thrust? Don't think I
am getting that....
Kurt S.
--- John Anderson <janderson412@hotmail.com> wrote:
When I ordered my prop from Warp, I gave them my power
combination and they were most adamant with their
recommendation. 72" taper tip and from my experience,
they were spot on. Good climb and cruise, I'm more
than happy.
__________________________________________________
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: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Aw, come on. You guys are making this too complicated.
Like Kurt says wide blades grip the air. The Powerfin is a wide blade. It
definitely grips the air! It doesn't slip much - especially in the longer
blade version. So if you put in lots of pitch for fast cruise speed, you
can't get any RPM on the ground. No RPM == no horse power. (Horse power
torque X RPM) So more accurately: low RPM = low horsepower = long take off
roll and low climb rate.
Or low pitch means you can get RPM's up on the take off and climb, but
limited top speed.
So you cut the blades shorter, the prop doesnt grip the air as good - so
with more pitch you get faster cruise and with more slippage on take off and
climb, you get more RPM (= more horsepower!) and so shorter take off and
climb.
I am glad that Lowell confirmed that at least two others have had the same
result with the shorter prop. I guess you lose more disc area with the
shorter prop than the 1" shorter blade would indicate.
Randy - also looking for a different prop...... Think I am going to try a
Kiev.
.
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt schrader
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 7:03 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Those are the blades I have John.
Trying to get my mind on topic again to think this in
debth. Not always easy these days.
Wider blades grip air, like all WX tires grip the
pavement. Narrow blades more like dragster tires.
You get a better bite with the wider blades from the
start = more static thrust and less slippage. But the
narrow blades come into their own as you speed up and
allow the engine to spool up better from the start.
The wider ones should run more draggy at higher speeds
and, as was said, for descent and landing.
If your tires grip and not slip, you need a lower
gear. If your prop grips from the start, you use less
pitch to keep RPM's up. Less pitch means the wide
cord blades will run out of pitch sooner in cruise.
Fixed pitch would theoritically like the narrow
blades. But if you have a cockpit adjustable prop,
the wider blades might be better?
Less diameter should mean some more slip too. Less
efficiency on the same pitch and rpm, but maybe allows
more HP from the motor..... You'd need to add a
little pitch for the reduced diameter, so it should be
less static thrust and maybe a slight plus in cruise.
I just cant see enough gain from reduced diameter to
equate to that big a gain in performance from diameter
alone. Unless there is more to the story, I'd think
the blade cord change was the bigger factor.
Again I have to yield to testing.
I need to static thrust test my plane some day too.
Lance claimed over 700 lbs of thrust? Don't think I
am getting that....
Kurt S.
--- John Anderson <janderson412@hotmail.com> wrote:
When I ordered my prop from Warp, I gave them my power
combination and they were most adamant with their
recommendation. 72" taper tip and from my experience,
they were spot on. Good climb and cruise, I'm more
than happy.
__________________________________________________
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Warp drive hub. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "QSS" <msm@byterocky.net>
One of my mates has a light wing with a Kiev and gets 5 knots better
performance than the other lightwings in the area that are using other prop
types. Climb is also much better but beware of the Kievs construction. They
are dead light in comparison to a Warp as testified by the results of him
flying into one of his cows that wandered into his take off run. The prop
literally disintegrated where as my Warp would have survived a 50 knot
impact had the plane not rolled onto her back in the water.
Regards
Graeme
Ph: 07 49397011
Mob: 0411476527
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 2:15 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
<rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Aw, come on. You guys are making this too complicated.
Like Kurt says wide blades grip the air. The Powerfin is a wide blade. It
definitely grips the air! It doesn't slip much - especially in the longer
blade version. So if you put in lots of pitch for fast cruise speed, you
can't get any RPM on the ground. No RPM == no horse power. (Horse power
torque X RPM) So more accurately: low RPM = low horsepower = long take off
roll and low climb rate.
Or low pitch means you can get RPM's up on the take off and climb, but
limited top speed.
So you cut the blades shorter, the prop doesn't grip the air as good - so
with more pitch you get faster cruise and with more slippage on take off and
climb, you get more RPM (= more horsepower!) and so shorter take off and
climb.
I am glad that Lowell confirmed that at least two others have had the same
result with the shorter prop. I guess you lose more disc area with the
shorter prop than the 1" shorter blade would indicate.
Randy - also looking for a different prop...... Think I am going to try a
Kiev.
.
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt schrader
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 7:03 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Those are the blades I have John.
Trying to get my mind on topic again to think this in
debth. Not always easy these days.
Wider blades grip air, like all WX tires grip the
pavement. Narrow blades more like dragster tires.
You get a better bite with the wider blades from the
start = more static thrust and less slippage. But the
narrow blades come into their own as you speed up and
allow the engine to spool up better from the start.
The wider ones should run more draggy at higher speeds
and, as was said, for descent and landing.
If your tires grip and not slip, you need a lower
gear. If your prop grips from the start, you use less
pitch to keep RPM's up. Less pitch means the wide
cord blades will run out of pitch sooner in cruise.
Fixed pitch would theoritically like the narrow
blades. But if you have a cockpit adjustable prop,
the wider blades might be better?
Less diameter should mean some more slip too. Less
efficiency on the same pitch and rpm, but maybe allows
more HP from the motor..... You'd need to add a
little pitch for the reduced diameter, so it should be
less static thrust and maybe a slight plus in cruise.
I just cant see enough gain from reduced diameter to
equate to that big a gain in performance from diameter
alone. Unless there is more to the story, I'd think
the blade cord change was the bigger factor.
Again I have to yield to testing.
I need to static thrust test my plane some day too.
Lance claimed over 700 lbs of thrust? Don't think I
am getting that....
Kurt S.
--- John Anderson <janderson412@hotmail.com> wrote:
When I ordered my prop from Warp, I gave them my power
combination and they were most adamant with their
recommendation. 72" taper tip and from my experience,
they were spot on. Good climb and cruise, I'm more
than happy.
__________________________________________________
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
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! --
|