Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:55 AM - Selling My NSI Subaru EA81-130-Turbo CAP Package (Jim Crowder)
2. 12:57 AM - Re: broken push rod suberu ea81 (Jim Crowder)
3. 04:08 AM - Re: Emailing: Mail0001 (Dave)
4. 04:26 AM - Re: broken push rod suberu ea81 (Fox5flyer)
5. 05:23 AM - Re: Low Fuel Warning - Tank venting (Ben Baltrusaitis)
6. 05:24 AM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor malcolm (Bradley M Webb)
7. 05:50 AM - Fly without turtle deck (Larry Martin)
8. 07:30 AM - Re: Re two strokes (Bradley M Webb)
9. 07:43 AM - Re: Oshkosh 2006? (Flybradair@cs.com)
10. 07:56 AM - Final Inspection (David Estapa)
11. 08:33 AM - Re: Oshkosh 2006? (WBL)
12. 08:56 AM - Re: Final Inspection (Lowell Fitt)
13. 09:06 AM - Re: Re two strokes (Dave G.)
14. 09:21 AM - Oshkosh 2006 (Steve Zakreski)
15. 09:42 AM - Re: Final Inspection (courierboy@earthlink.net)
16. 09:51 AM - Re: Model IV 1200 Dimensions (Johannes Czernin)
17. 09:53 AM - Re: Camlocs (Kfyellowbird@cs.com)
18. 10:40 AM - Question for the old timers (Dave G.)
19. 10:45 AM - pitch angle Warp Drive propeller ()
20. 11:06 AM - Re: Final Inspection (RFor785099@aol.com)
21. 11:06 AM - Re: Oshkosh 2006? (Fox5flyer)
22. 11:11 AM - Re: Question for the old timers (Fox5flyer)
23. 11:27 AM - Re: Oshkosh 2006 (Fox5flyer)
24. 01:28 PM - Watermellon social (Fox5flyer)
25. 03:10 PM - Re: pitch angle Warp Drive propeller (RAY Gignac)
26. 03:14 PM - Re: Final Inspection (Guy Buchanan)
27. 05:03 PM - Re: pitch angle Warp Drive propeller (Lowell Fitt)
28. 05:33 PM - Throttle Cable (jeff puls)
29. 05:39 PM - Inspections (eccles)
30. 05:39 PM - Re: Throttle Cable (eccles)
31. 05:48 PM - A sight you'll never see again (Roger McConnell)
32. 05:54 PM - Re: broken push rod suberu ea81 (wingsdown)
33. 05:55 PM - Re: broken push rod suberu ea81 (wingsdown)
34. 06:23 PM - Re: Inspections (Brian Smith)
35. 06:24 PM - Re: Inspections (Brian Smith)
36. 06:46 PM - Re: A sight you'll never see again (Clem Nichols)
37. 06:52 PM - Re: Inspections (Larry Huntley)
38. 07:00 PM - Re: Tires for sale (Jim Carriere)
39. 07:13 PM - Re: A sight you'll never see again (Fox5flyer)
40. 07:19 PM - Re: Inspections (kirk hull)
41. 07:27 PM - Re: Inspections (kirk hull)
42. 07:28 PM - Re: broken push rod suberu ea81 (kirk hull)
43. 07:48 PM - Model 4 Manual (David Estapa)
44. 07:52 PM - Re: Final Inspection (David Estapa)
45. 07:53 PM - Re: Tires for sale (darinh)
46. 08:28 PM - Re: Inspections (RAY Gignac)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Selling My NSI Subaru EA81-130-Turbo CAP Package |
Ok guys. I have now made a firm decision to sell my very low time
engine and prop package. I had a very nice talk with John McBean
this morning and the complete Rotax firewall forward package with a
simple prop will cost me right at $20K. I am going to now offer my
currently installed NSI Turbo CAP package as a firewall forward
package. It will include everything I have, including the cowling,
firewall, engine mount, CAP prop, radiator, fuel pump--everything for
$8,500.00.
I will fix the ignition problem that I just discovered and mentioned
in my previous email. The engine has dual ignitions and upon my last
shutdown, I discovered that one side was not working. I had implied
that I would not fix that, but it is not that big a deal, and I will
now fix it with Peter Graichen's help. Before I would buy a used
engine, I would want to be able to see it running, and that is what I
am offering.
This is too heavy a package for the early Kitfoxes, including the
current Model 4's. I sincerely believe it is a very solid engine for
the bigger Foxes, with extra juice provided by the automotive
turbocharger and the cabin adjustable prop which allows maximum
efficiency for both takeoffs and cruising. This price will allow
someone with a Model 5 and up, to substantially reduce their dollar
outlay, and still own an engine that will produce smiles. I believe
the EA81 Subaru's are the most popular auto conversions powering
aircraft. Most parts can be purchased as automotive parts. A lot
cheaper than aircraft parts as we all know. No engine choice is
without drawbacks, buy this one has a lot going for it, especially
its condition and its price. No way, though, will it qualify for a
Light Sport Aircraft.
For those who have expressed concern regarding my current prostate
cancer status. Not to worry. The prostate cancer, if I even have
it, is currently well under control and offers no current threat to
my life and well being. It is my current treatments including chemo
that are a bitch, but they are and have worked. Today I have felt
much better and in a week or so, I will be back to near normal. Then
July 27th I get my final treatment. My first treatments held for
nine years and I expect at least that much again.
I called Peter Graichen today, and I think he is probably the most
expert person on NSI engines outside of the original designers. He
now has over 1000 hours on his, and still loves it. He flies it
everyday. Peter is behind my decision to go ahead and repair mine
before selling it. After our talk, he believes my problem lies in a
faulty pickup. There are two. He gave me detailed instructions
regarding their operation and troubleshooting. As soon as my
treatments are over, I plan to remove my pickups, and use my parent
airline flying privileges to fly to Ohio. Peter says he will pick me
up at the airport and spend the day building replacement pickups and
will share a ton of NSI knowledge with me. I can't pass this up. I
first met Peter when he was building his Oskosh award winning plane
in Longmont, Colorado. Peter is a true craftsman and a heck of a fellow.
On a less happy note, while Peter was trying to encourage me in
dealing with my cancer problem, he let it slip that he is having
similar treatments, and I am guessing that his threat is more serious
than mine, as most are. He said it was not going to keep him away
from Oshkosh this year. Peter is of the strong German warrior mold,
and not one to seek sympathy. He allowed us to spend no time
dwelling on his condition, and I do not have his permission to share
my knowledge. I hope he will forgive me, but I know what a caring
bunch the members of this list are, and I know all will want to give
him their personal encouragement, best wishes, and their
prayers. Peter Graichen truly is our friend.
Sorry Peter, I felt I had to do this.
Jim Crowder
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: | broken push rod suberu ea81 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
My understanding from Lance is that the turbos did have hydraulic
lifters and did not require adjustment.
Jim Crowder
At 11:51 PM 7/14/2006, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
>
>If you might post a shot to me too Rick, do the NSI turbos have hyd
>lifters? John
>
>
>
>I will be out to the airport on the 17th and would be most happy to do
>that.
>
>Rick
>
>-----Original Message-----
>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
>Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 5:27 AM
>
>
>are you using an NSI and if so would you have a push rod handy to
>photograph? Please don't remove one but if you have one just laying
>around I would really like to see a pic.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John
>Anderson
>Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:28 PM
>
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson"
>
>Yes Rick, mine are are much thinker too and non turbo are the same. It
>does look like an after market item. John A.
>
>
> _____
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
>
>Humm, that looks like an aluminum custom type. Is it? The stock ones, at
>least on the turbo engine are steal, fat, real beefy. I don't have
>experience with the non-turbo, maybe someone else can comment. I would
>change to the tougher style, not good. Let me know.
>
>Rick
>
>-----Original Message-----
>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
>Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 6:26 PM
>
>
>sorry I must have forgotten to attach the photo so here it is
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of kirk hull
>Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:09 PM
>
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@sbcglobal.net>
>
>I had an in flight failure last week of N205AK's Suberu ea81. She was
>landed with no problems and everyone is ok. The push rod on the # 4
>cylinder ( Front right)snaped. Attached is a picture of the part . it
>made a clean break almost dead center on the rod completely in to. With
>only 20 hrs on the engine and only 5 in flight this should not have
>happened. Has anyone else seen this before and why did it happen? P.S.
>it is a 100HP Stratus =========================Navigator to Photoshare,
>and http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>=========================List Wiki!
>=========================http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>===================================
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Shop 'til you drop at XtraMSN Shopping http://shopping.xtramsn.co.nz/home/
>
>
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: Emailing: Mail0001 |
Clem, If the ear is cracked or broken on your cover then it will most
likely fail at some point.
Now you can always hand prop your 582 to get it going but if the starter
becomes jammed more damage could occur. As Deke suggested perhaps a
weld job might work. A new cover seems expensive but would you rather R
& R the engine twice incase the weld does not hold ? Now what is
critical is to make sure you set the gap between the starter and starter
housing at 1 mm ( about .040) - too tight and your cover will fail
again. I have seen some attach ground straps to one of these two bolts
and I think that might change the 1mm gap setting and make it too tight
but I am not 100% sure. I wold ask the advice or a trained Rotax Shop
for advice.
How many hours on on engine since the starter bolts have been tightened
? And maybe it a good time to pull engine and get a service done ?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Clem Nichols
To: kitfox list
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 9:26 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Emailing: Mail0001
Attached (I hope) is a picture of the break which I recently noticed
in the starter cover on my 582 engine. The arrow points to the
approximate place at which the break occurred. The starter motor is
still attached firmly because the break did not involve either one of
the "ears" to which it is attached. Has anyone else experienced a
similar problem? Understand that all the rubber O rings were in place
as per the diagram. Obviously the prudent thing to do is replace the
cover, but at $342 it's a bitter pill to swallow. I had always been
under the impression that an arch (which is what the cover amounts to at
the point where it broke) had to break in 2 places to break at all, but
I guess where cast aluminum is concerned, anything can happen.
Clem Nichols
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link
attachments:
Mail0001
e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
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: | Re: broken push rod suberu ea81 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Hello John. All the EA81 NSI normally aspirated engines have solid lifters
and the turbos have hydraulics. I don't know the reason for the difference.
Obviously the solids need to be adjusted properly, especially right at the
beginning and periodically thereafter. One of the most common reasons for
broken pushrods are incorrect adjustment which is an owner requirement.
Deke
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 1:47 AM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson"
<janderson412@hotmail.com>
>
> Was this/these failures with hydraulic or solid lifters. All the original
> turbo engines came out with hyd, any faulures in with these? John A.
>
>
>
> Kirk,
>
> Michael Harter had an NSI EA81 in his Model IV several years back. On
> takeoff one time he lost power (not all) throttled back and returned to
the
> airport. He discovered several (not sure how many) broken push rods. He
> replaced then with parts from NSI.
>
> --
> John King
> Warrenton, VA
>
> kirk hull wrote:
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@sbcglobal.net>
>
> I had an in flight failure last week of N205AK's Suberu ea81. She was
landed
> with no problems and everyone is ok. The push rod on the # 4 cylinder (
> Front right)snaped. Attached is a picture of the part . it made a clean
> break almost dead center on the rod completely in to. With only 20 hrs on
> the engine and only 5 in flight this should not have happened. Has anyone
> else seen this before and why did it happen? P.S. it is a 100HP Stratus
> conversion.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Shop 'til you drop at XtraMSN Shopping http://shopping.xtramsn.co.nz/home/
>
>
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: Low Fuel Warning - Tank venting |
Dave,
You're supposed to suck on the cap vents, then if there is an
obstruction in there, you will clear it out ;>)
Ben
DO NOT ARCHIVE
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: 07/13/2006 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Low Fuel Warning - Tank venting
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
I just got back from flying and before i went I took the advice on
someone
here to blow through the cap vents.
I did all 3 and all clear. Thanks for heads up !
Dave
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor malcolm |
Just a bit tongue-in-cheek. I was referring to the nasty shake on startup
and shutdown. And the high-pitch "buzz" from it while flying did numb my
foot a bit. In fact, it was the only complaint by my oldest son about his
ride. I think maybe in the Lycoming/172, there's more weight dampening and
insulation? I sure don't notice it as much.
Ah, weight. There is no beating the two stroke power-to-weight ratio. I
figured I would gain about 30lbs with the conversion, and this is contrary
to my goal for the airplane of keeping it light. But it was a compromise I
had to accept.
Bradley
_____
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 11:47 PM
I half.... Ok more than half agree with you. Everything I've seen on the
Geo Suzi engine has been good. Yes the 2stroke anything will require more
maintenance than almost anything 4stroke. but.... Yep here it comes ....
the 2 stroke is so much lighter. As for fuel consumption youhave me
there....hands down!
What's this about loose fillings and numb feet. I've spent most of my time
behincd a Lyc. in a 172 Spam can. and I can tell you there is no more
vibration from my "R"
As for folding the wings.... Every time I fly. If I have a beef it's with
installing the turtle deck. I've flown with the doors open maybe it will
fly nice with the turtle deck back on the ground. On the other hand I have
a 1/4 wave com. antenna mounted on my one piece deck.
Fly Fish, Fly Floats, Fly Safe!
Noel
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bradley M Webb
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 4:53 PM
This is precisely why I went with the Geo. It uses 2gph, the core motor cost
is $300, and the total rebuild was $500, including pistons, valve train,
gaskets, the works. You basically end up with a zero time motor, and parts
are never farther than the local auto parts store. The redrive system is
expensive, but you only buy that once. You can get a second motor, build it
up as a spare, and have well less than $5000 in both (BTW, that's redrive,
prop, everything). Some of the guys do this for their trikes (and I plan to,
as well). If the Geo does crap out, just load up your spare and go fly.
Theoretically, you could replace a Geo core at annual every year with a
decent low time motor (do nothing to it), and spend next to nothing on it
over the course of a year's flying. Not really practical, but you could if
you wanted to. Cost per hour would be maybe $20-$25, depending on the hours
flown?
Not a Geo plug, just why I went with it over the other choices. The 582 was
just too darned expensive to maintain and operate, required way too much
maintenance, and I had to mail order every single part. All that for 4-7
gph, loose fillings, and numb feet.
As long as the Rotax was there, my sons only got one flight each. I couldn't
trust it enough to risk them. My butt is one thing, but theirs is another
altogether.
I wanted to fly for fun, and not spend a small fortune on it. If I wanted to
totally waste money, I'd have a boat.
BTW, I don't like folding my wings as a regular practice. Seems to be a bit
of a PITA for that on a daily basis. However, it is super nice to be able to
fold to get it around when needed. Sometimes I like to just go for just 30
minutes, and trailering wouldn't really be practical for that sort of
flying. Maybe your friend would let you park at the strip?
Bradley
_____
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Smith
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 8:11 AM
Yea, I guess that I started this thing. I am still looking at that kit but
am not ready to jump into it at this time. I am a furloughed AA pilot and I
was looking for something that I could go flying with my son on the
weekends. It would have to be VERY cost effective because of the furloughed
thing. It was looking like I could have a complete flying airplane for
under 10K. Now I don't think that I would put my son in it without a new
engine. That about blows the 10K thing out of the water. I am in love with
the folding wings thing. Keep it in my garage and I have a friend about two
miles down the road with a 1800 grass strip, it dosen't get very much better
than that. So I will keep looking and hope something comes up. I want to
thank Al also. He hooked me up with this e-mail group and I am enjoying it
very much. Brian Smith.
_____
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Malcolmbru@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 9:40 PM
Can any body remember how this all started? I think a farley new guy asked
about a motor considering to buy an old kit. I wonder how this guy feels
about the question now. I think the correct answer to his question mite
be something like this a motor that old is not worth very much, almost all
the parts are available a lot of people are still flying them. a kit that
old is not worth a lot of money but almost everyone that fly's them really
like them. mal
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: | Fly without turtle deck |
"maybe it will fly nice with the turtle deck back on the ground. "
I would definitely NOT recommend this. I had a small panel maybe
12"x12" blow out of turtle deck and the resulting drag/ lost of lift was
very noticeable. I think that if you removed the deck completely, if
would cause a huge loss of lift, and / or be a huge "bucket" catching
wind off the top of the cockpit. In any case, when my small panel
departed, I need much more power and still lost airspeed. It happened
during a steep sideslip with one door open and the other closed. The
air pressure from that slip was enough to "pop" the Velcro loose and the
panel departed. (Not a problem with both doors open.) The airplane was
still flyable, but it eliminated my thoughts of flying without the deck
on.
Larry
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 |
|
I guess it was you. I think its an awesome feat, and I'd bet it was a great
trip.
I, too, have raced two-strokes, and I do like them very much for that. I
recently have had interest in the new four-stroke bikes, but it's only been
in the last few years that they were made competitive. I've never had a
serious, catastrophic failure on one. And they get beat up pretty hard and
abused. But it's a different application, and I don't know how it relates. I
do know the very small (125cc) motors require a bit more help, but I ran the
bigger stuff.
My 582 was ok until the break (aren't they all?). But my distrust goes
deeper than that, and covers the package as a whole. It vibrates terribly,
uses a lot of gas, the crank issues, the poorly written manuals, the lack of
factory support and acknowledgement of the weak areas, high parts prices, no
less than 72 special tools, etc., no local support, etc. My failure was the
straw on the proverbial camel's back for me.
It seems there is a constant thread, on any of several newsgroups, about
someone having a problem on their Rotax. I truly believe it is a poor
aircraft powerplant. It's life expectancy is too short, and I never trusted
it.
Here's what I see: with the Rotax, the information available is about fixing
problems. When you cruise the Geo threads, it's about making it better and
forward progress. It's rare that someone writes about a failure. I don't
follow the Subie threads, but I'd guess it's about the same. Ditto the 912
threads. Yes, occasionally someone hits a problem, but that reasonable for
all things. But the 582 stuff is dis-proportionate, from what I see.
Bradley
_____
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rex Shaw
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 3:47 PM
I agree with you. But I've heard so many various Rotax stories, that the
motor scared me even before I flew it. I had intended on going another way
right from the start. I just hoped it would survive long enough to find a
suitable cliff. It didn't.
One guy flew one clear across Australia. That's gutsy.
Is that me you are refering to ? I bought my MKIV/582 about 2 years ago in
Perth in Western Australia and flew it home to Loxton in Sth Australia. This
was written up in an article in our Australian Ultralight magazine.
OK the motor was a nearly new bluehead 582 and had only done 45 hours at the
start of the trip. About the same time another guy did an almost identical
trip in an Xair with a 582 in it. My point is this two strokes are more than
happy doing this sort of thing. Yes two strokes do need a different
understanding to a four stroke. However it is only fair that one understands
the equiptment they are using before blaming it when it fails. I have had a
lot to do with racing two strokes and I love them. If you understand them
and treat them right why shouldn't they be more reliable in fact than a four
stroke. There is less parts after all. All motors are a work in progress and
faults are rectified as they occur and the motor evolves into its current
form. This is basically why the Model 99 or Bluehead as we call it 582 is
better than the grey head. I repeat all motors evolve or should anyway. I
don't think anyone has made a perfect one first time.
Now there is a factor that comes into all this. The 582 is making a lot of
power for its weight, capacity and size. So maybe it is stressed a bit more
than a larger motor making similar horsepower be it 4 stroke or 2 stroke.
However consider that the modern 2 stroke now is typically 85% efficient and
it fires every time the piston hits top dead centre, so it will make more
power for the same tuning level than a 4 stroke of the same capacity. Don't
forget though the 582 is not that highly tuned or stressed. Look at the
power it makes as a 583 !
I think a lot of this talk about 2 strokes being inferior is not accurate
understanding and knowledge. I put faith in mine to bring me home from Perth
and I intend to fly it back there and home again one day. Also in maybe 12
months I will fly it to Alice Springs in the centre of Australia. Am I mad ?
You be the judge !
Regards the 532 I don't know a lot about this except heresay but there is
a lot of that ! Anyway for what it's worth as it's only my impression the
532 made similar power to the 582 but it was more highly tuned and peaky.
Not really suitable for the purpose hence the 582 was born and later
developed to what it is today. The old 532 lacks that development. Also such
an old motor is likely to have rust spots on needle bearings apart from the
bore etc etc. The needle bearings though are the ones that are going to
cause very early failure. So all in all I totally agree with the general
concensus. Use the 532 for a boat anchor or at least in some situation where
a failure is not serious.
If anyone has some cold hard facts against two strokes by all means state
them but just generally knocking the 2 stroke without fact is pointless. I
ran and owned an electrical business for 30 years before I sold up and
retired. Part of that time we sold lawnmowers and we only ever sold one 4
stroke on special request. All the others were 2 strokes. However the
general public opinion was against the 2 stroke and this is just the same
thing happening here against 2 strokes. Some guys understand 4 strokes but
not 2 strokes so yes for them I guess a 4 stroke is the better choice.
Blaming 2 strokes because one had starter gear problems is typical of the
problem. Could not the same thing happen to a four stroke ?
OK enough on this subject I'll shut up now I've tried to point this out
and by the way I do like the idea of the Geo engine. The one thing I don't
like about the 582 is it doesn't like going below 3,000 RPM. I have seen a
Geo running dead smooth and I assume it will be more economical. However it
won't fit under the cowl as well or weigh the same. Can't win them all.
Rex Shaw
Australia.
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: Oshkosh 2006? |
Hi Deke,
Riding up with some buddies this year to Oshkosh. Will be staying at camp
Scholler as always. Going to spend some time at Johns setup to see him again and
see how things are going. Hope I can catch up with you somewhere this
year--after 8 or 9 in a row missed the last 2. I am having withdrawals and need
to get
back! The red fox is flying fine with the lycoming, 50.5 hours now and
everything is signed off with the first inspection completed also. Not taking her
this year though. Plane is fine but the low time pilot still needs work!
Cell-----316-648-7649.
Brad Martin
Wichita
N232WB
5---lyc o-235
In a message dated 7/9/06 8:21:40 PM Central Daylight Time,
morid@northland.lib.mi.us writes:
>
> Was wondering if there would be many Kitfoxers driving/flying/walking/etc.
> into AirVenture this year. I plan on driving and being there for the week,
> but not the weekend, staying at Camp Scholler. It would be nice meet up with
> some of you great people. You know, talk Kitfox, tell lies, share some
> refreshments, that sort of stuff. Perhaps we could also make a point to meet
up
> somewhere during the week, maybe Acey Ducey?
> Anybody interested?
> Deke
> NE Michigan
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Final Inspection |
Second Try (after working on a Kitfox for 8 years I misspelled Kitfox in
the Matronics address!)
I'm going through all the paper work for my Final Inspection. I came
across a check list on an FAA web site for items I need, and this
statement I don't understand: A program letter in accordance with 14
CFR section 21.191(g). Which I looked up and it says:
(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major
portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who
undertook the construction project solely for their own education or
recreation.
I think this refers to the 51% rule. Where do I get this. I know all
Kitfox kits meet this rule. Do I have to prove it?
I can't reach the DAR I want to use as he must be out of town. Any help
would be appreciated.
C David Estapa
Woodstock, GA
N97DE S5 TD
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: Oshkosh 2006? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: WBL <aeromer@ix.netcom.com>
I go to Oshkosh every year and stay at my son's place just 20 minutes from EAA.
This year I will be on site every day and hope to meet some of you Kitfoxers.
I will usually be walking around in an orange Dornier DO-24 flight suit. weather
permitting, and will definately be at the best party of the week, the Seaplane
Pilots Corn Roast, for which I have an extra ticket! Hope to make contact
with some of you. BTW, I will have a car on site if anybody needs a ride
into town. Pete, KF-Classic IV
-----Original Message-----
>From: Flybradair@cs.com
>Sent: Jul 15, 2006 7:41 AM
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Oshkosh 2006?
>
>
> Hi Deke,
>
>Riding up with some buddies this year to Oshkosh. Will be staying at camp
>Scholler as always. Going to spend some time at Johns setup to see him again and
>see how things are going. Hope I can catch up with you somewhere this
>year--after 8 or 9 in a row missed the last 2. I am having withdrawals and need
to get
>back! The red fox is flying fine with the lycoming, 50.5 hours now and
>everything is signed off with the first inspection completed also. Not taking
her
>this year though. Plane is fine but the low time pilot still needs work!
Do Not Archive
>Cell-----316-648-7649.
>
>Brad Martin
>Wichita
>N232WB
>5---lyc o-235
>
>
>In a message dated 7/9/06 8:21:40 PM Central Daylight Time,
>morid@northland.lib.mi.us writes:
>>
>> Was wondering if there would be many Kitfoxers driving/flying/walking/etc.
>> into AirVenture this year. I plan on driving and being there for the week,
>> but not the weekend, staying at Camp Scholler. It would be nice meet up with
>> some of you great people. You know, talk Kitfox, tell lies, share some
>> refreshments, that sort of stuff. Perhaps we could also make a point to meet
up
>> somewhere during the week, maybe Acey Ducey?
>> Anybody interested?
>> Deke
>> NE Michigan
>>
>>
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: Final Inspection |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
David,
The Kitfox complies with the regs. The Kitfox is on the FAA approved list.
Especially if you can document your 8 years. I found that when I had the
inspection, the examiner was very familiar with the Kitfox and it's history.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 7:52 AM
> Second Try (after working on a Kitfox for 8 years I misspelled Kitfox in
> the Matronics address!)
>
> I'm going through all the paper work for my Final Inspection. I came
> across a check list on an FAA web site for items I need, and this
> statement I don't understand: A program letter in accordance with 14
> CFR section 21.191(g). Which I looked up and it says:
> (g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major
> portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who
> undertook the construction project solely for their own education or
> recreation.
> I think this refers to the 51% rule. Where do I get this. I know all
> Kitfox kits meet this rule. Do I have to prove it?
> I can't reach the DAR I want to use as he must be out of town. Any help
> would be appreciated.
>
> C David Estapa
> Woodstock, GA
> N97DE S5 TD
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: Re two strokes |
On the Saturn group I monitor, nothing but problems and suggestions. On
the corvair aircraft group, a raging and impolite arguement about their
suitability. On the rotax 912 group, problems. On the subaru group,
problems. In the case of the GEO, if there are no problems I'd suspect
it's because there are so few of them. I've flown two strokes, seemed
ok. My Kitfox has a 582 and 700 hours on the hobbs all on the grey head
582. I expect there are many users with huge numbers of hours without
incident. I hope the geo works out for you, but you apparently haven't
flown even a minute with it. How about instead of trashing the motors
others are using, you get a few dozen real hours and let us know how you
make out.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bradley M Webb
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 11:26 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re two strokes
It seems there is a constant thread, on any of several newsgroups,
about someone having a problem on their Rotax. I truly believe it is a
poor aircraft powerplant. It's life expectancy is too short, and I never
trusted it.
Here's what I see: with the Rotax, the information available is about
fixing problems. When you cruise the Geo threads, it's about making it
better and forward progress. It's rare that someone writes about a
failure. I don't follow the Subie threads, but I'd guess it's about the
same. Ditto the 912 threads. Yes, occasionally someone hits a problem,
but that reasonable for all things. But the 582 stuff is
dis-proportionate, from what I see.
Bradley
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 |
|
I have a similar story. I have been to Oshkosh every year for the last 5
years. I always sleep the night before in a town about one hour flying time
from Oshkosh, and then time my morning arrival to coincide exactly with the
opening of the airport. Very relaxed and stress free arrival. There is
nothing that will bring tears to your eyes like landing in Oshkosh the first
time in an aircraft you built yourself. A very proud and emotional moment.
SteveZ
Calgary
_____
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Huntley
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 5:12 AM
I learned something about OSH a few years ago.I really didn't want to fly
into that beehive,so I chose to fly into Fond Du Lac. I left Mi. just before
daylight and was calling in at Fond Du Lac about 45 min later, just before
the tower opened. I tried there and OSH and there was no sound on the
radio,no tower,no traffic. I was getting concerned about my radio when I was
answered by the tower"cleared to land"for # ??runway. Nothing wrong w/ the
radio. No one was up yet. I fortunately made a last call before diverting at
precisely the tower opening time. We were the only plane in the sky and the
first ones on the ground at Fond Du Lac. Piece of cake. It was no busier at
OSH.
So, if you don't mind getting up in the AM,it is a pretty easy flight,or
was that time. And that was opening day. Larry Huntley
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: Final Inspection |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: courierboy@earthlink.net
David -
The document showing that Kitfox satisfies the 51% rule is at:
http://search.google.dot.gov/FAA/FAASearchProcess.asp?ie=&site=DOT_Pages&output=xml_no_dtd&client=DOT_Pages&lr=&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.google.dot.gov%2FFAA%2Ffaa_google.xslt&oe=&faa_only=1&q=REVISED+LISTING+OF+AMATEUR-BUILT+AIRCRAFT+KITS&x=13&y
At top of page click on:
REVISED LISTING OF AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT KITS
See page 14 for Kitfox.
Bill
(lurking)
>Second Try (after working on a Kitfox for 8 years I misspelled
>Kitfox in the Matronics address!)
>
>I'm going through all the paper work for my Final Inspection. I came
>across a check list on an FAA web site for items I need, and this
>statement I don't understand: A program letter in accordance with
>14 CFR section
><http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/A9986A485C9E636386256EDF00510840?OpenDocument>21.191(g).
>Which I looked up and it says:
>(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the
>major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons
>who undertook the construction project solely for their own
>education or recreation.
> I think this refers to the 51% rule. Where do I get this. I know
>all Kitfox kits meet this rule. Do I have to prove it?
>I can't reach the DAR I want to use as he must be out of town. Any
>help would be appreciated.
>
>C David Estapa
>Woodstock, GA
>N97DE S5 TD
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: | Model IV 1200 Dimensions |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Johannes Czernin" <jcz@chello.at>
Hi, Pete,
Unfortunately that huge thing - "Spaceship Enterprise" as my friends used to
call it - was built sort of semi-professionally by someone else, and in
another country on top of that, so I never had any sort of dimensional
drawings. The only "documentation" I had to provide to get it certified for
road traffic use was two copies of just ONE photo, and this can still be
seen in the "Trailers" section at the Sportflight site.
Kind regards,
Johannes
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of WBL
> Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 6:29 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model IV 1200 Dimensions
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: WBL <aeromer@ix.netcom.com>
>
> Johannes, I remember from years ago that you had the "ultimate"
> Kitfox trailer. Do you still have pictures or details? Pete Lee
> (retired maritime museum director and Kitfox IV flyer)
>
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 |
|
Hi Graeme,
My Lite 2 kit came with 2600-3w the winged cad plated type, but I'm subbing
for the 2700-2s or 3s the flush stainless steel type. Available from Aircraft
Spruce. Good luck.
Lowell Schaper
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Question for the old timers |
I am dissassembling the rear spars from the wings on my IV for
replacement. The previous owner began repairs and I am undoing some of
that.
My question surrounds the epoxy used by Denney in 1992. Where I am
removing the original epoxy it has some "give" to it and surrenders
quickly to the hot knife arrangement I am using. The newly glued
surfaces use Hysol and it is hard as a rock and rather more resistant to
heat.
So, what was the original adhesive? If both are the same Hysol
adhesive, what is the difference? Cotton flox?
BTW I can now confirm that it takes much longer to disassemble a wing
(assuming you want to use the ribs over) than it takes to build one.
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: | pitch angle Warp Drive propeller |
Is there anybody who has a suggestion for the (nearly) correct pitch
angle
(measured on the tips) on my new 3-blade 68" Warp Drive propeller with
tapered tips in combination with a Rotax 912 (80HP) engine. I want 5000
RPM
static on the ground. I'm using the original Warp Drive protractor.
Thanks,
Andy
Kitfox Vixen V
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: Final Inspection |
David
Yes its the 51% rule.
I'm still coming up to Ga. This week my home A/C unit gave up after 21 years
and I'm trying to get quotes to replace the complete unit inside and outside
so my KF is suffering but I did get my new rudder cables installed.
Bob Forrest
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 2006? |
Hi Brad. I've got your number on my list and will also be at Camp
Scholler, arriving Saturday evening and staying most of the week.
We'll hook up.
Deke
989 736 8264
----- Original Message -----
From: Flybradair@cs.com
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Oshkosh 2006?
Hi Deke,
Riding up with some buddies this year to Oshkosh. Will be staying at
camp Scholler as always. Going to spend some time at Johns setup to see
him again and see how things are going. Hope I can catch up with you
somewhere this year--after 8 or 9 in a row missed the last 2. I am
having withdrawals and need to get back! The red fox is flying fine with
the lycoming, 50.5 hours now and everything is signed off with the first
inspection completed also. Not taking her this year though. Plane is
fine but the low time pilot still needs work! Cell-----316-648-7649.
Brad Martin
Wichita
N232WB
5---lyc o-235
In a message dated 7/9/06 8:21:40 PM Central Daylight Time,
morid@northland.lib.mi.us writes:
Was wondering if there would be many Kitfoxers
driving/flying/walking/etc. into AirVenture this year. I plan on
driving and being there for the week, but not the weekend, staying at
Camp Scholler. It would be nice meet up with some of you great people.
You know, talk Kitfox, tell lies, share some refreshments, that sort of
stuff. Perhaps we could also make a point to meet up somewhere during
the week, maybe Acey Ducey?
Anybody interested?
Deke
NE Michigan
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: Question for the old timers |
Dave, the original adhesive was probably 3M 2216. It's good stuff, but
it had to be mixed 1/3 - 2/3 which was a bit of a bother. The good
thing is that it can be removed with heat.
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave G.
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 1:38 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Question for the old timers
I am dissassembling the rear spars from the wings on my IV for
replacement. The previous owner began repairs and I am undoing some of
that.
My question surrounds the epoxy used by Denney in 1992. Where I am
removing the original epoxy it has some "give" to it and surrenders
quickly to the hot knife arrangement I am using. The newly glued
surfaces use Hysol and it is hard as a rock and rather more resistant to
heat.
So, what was the original adhesive? If both are the same Hysol
adhesive, what is the difference? Cotton flox?
BTW I can now confirm that it takes much longer to disassemble a wing
(assuming you want to use the ribs over) than it takes to build one.
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 2006 |
Hey Steve, look me up at the Camp. I'll be roughly in the same area.
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Zakreski
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 12:17 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Oshkosh 2006
I have a similar story. I have been to Oshkosh every year for the
last 5 years. I always sleep the night before in a town about one hour
flying time from Oshkosh, and then time my morning arrival to coincide
exactly with the opening of the airport. Very relaxed and stress free
arrival. There is nothing that will bring tears to your eyes like
landing in Oshkosh the first time in an aircraft you built yourself. A
very proud and emotional moment.
SteveZ
Calgary
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry
Huntley
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 5:12 AM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Student pilot solo to Oshkosh 2006?
I learned something about OSH a few years ago.I really didn't want to
fly into that beehive,so I chose to fly into Fond Du Lac. I left Mi.
just before daylight and was calling in at Fond Du Lac about 45 min
later, just before the tower opened. I tried there and OSH and there was
no sound on the radio,no tower,no traffic. I was getting concerned about
my radio when I was answered by the tower"cleared to land"for #
??runway. Nothing wrong w/ the radio. No one was up yet. I fortunately
made a last call before diverting at precisely the tower opening time.
We were the only plane in the sky and the first ones on the ground at
Fond Du Lac. Piece of cake. It was no busier at OSH.
So, if you don't mind getting up in the AM,it is a pretty easy
flight,or was that time. And that was opening day. Larry
Huntley
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: | Watermellon social |
I asked about the watermellon social previously and I think somebody
said it was at the seaplane base, but I don't recall hearing a
date-time. Can anybody fill us in?
Deke
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: | pitch angle Warp Drive propeller |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "RAY Gignac" <kitfoxpilot@msn.com>
I have been flying with 16 degrees pitch, I have a model IV 1200 with a
912uls.
Ray
>From: <al.bijkerk@kliksafe.nl>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Kitfox-List: pitch angle Warp Drive propeller
>Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:44:21 +0200
>
>Is there anybody who has a suggestion for the (nearly) correct pitch angle
>(measured on the tips) on my new 3-blade 68" Warp Drive propeller with
>tapered tips in combination with a Rotax 912 (80HP) engine. I want 5000 RPM
>static on the ground. I'm using the original Warp Drive protractor.
>
>Thanks,
>Andy
>Kitfox Vixen V
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: Final Inspection |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 07:52 AM 7/15/2006, you wrote:
> I came across a check list on an FAA web site for items I need, and this
> statement I don't understand: A program letter in accordance with 14
> CFR section 21.191(g).
I downloaded one from the EAA site. My DAR had his own, though, and wanted
me to use it. Moral: Talk to your DAR first. (When he gets back from vacation.)
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pitch angle Warp Drive propeller |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Andy, I have been running at 17 degrees with the protractor at the inboard
edge of the metal leading edge. I may be a bit course at that, but got 5000
RPM and 800 fpm on a climb out this afternoon from my home airport - 1300 ft
elev and 98 degrees F.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 10:44 AM
Is there anybody who has a suggestion for the (nearly) correct pitch angle
(measured on the tips) on my new 3-blade 68" Warp Drive propeller with
tapered tips in combination with a Rotax 912 (80HP) engine. I want 5000 RPM
static on the ground. I'm using the original Warp Drive protractor.
Thanks,
Andy
Kitfox Vixen V
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 |
|
Hey Guys,
Do they make a vernier (Spelled wrong I am sure) throttle cable for the
912UL? Jeff
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 |
|
Hey Boys and Girls
who can i get to annual my Kitfox? A&P or do I need a IA?
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 |
|
Aircraft Spruce sells a Veneer Cables unless you need a special kind of end
on it.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of jeff puls
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 7:32 PM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Throttle Cable
Hey Guys,
Do they make a vernier (Spelled wrong I am sure) throttle cable for the
912UL? Jeff
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: | A sight you'll never see again |
_____
This isn't Kitfox related but I thought everyone might find this
interesting.
**Our history lesson for today**
_____
Mars
The Red Planet is about to be spectacular!
This month and next, Earth is catching up with Mars in an encounter that
will culminate in the closest approach between the two planets in
recorded history. The next time Mars may come this close is
in 2287. Due to the way Jupiter's gravity tugs on
Mars and perturbs its orbit, astronomers can only be
certain that Mars has not come this close to Earth
in the Last 5,000 years, but it may be as long as
60,000 years before it happens again.
The encounter will culminate on August 27th when
Mars comes to within 34,649,589 miles of Earth and
will be (next to the moon) the brightest object in
the night sky. It will attain a magnitude of - 2.9
and will appear 25.11 arc seconds wide. At a modest
75-power magnification
Mars will look as large as the full moon to the naked eye.
Mars will be easy to spot. At the
beginning of August it will rise in the east at 10p.m.
and reach its azimuth at about 3 a.m.
By the end of August when the two planets are
closest, Mars will rise at nightfall and reach its
highest point in the sky at 12:30a.m. That's pretty
convenient to see something that no human being has
seen in recorded history. So, mark your calendar at
the beginning of August to see Mars grow
progressively brighter and brighter throughout the
month.
Share this with your children and grandchildren.
NO ONE ALIVE TODAY WILL EVER SEE THIS AGAIN
_____
No virus found in this incoming message.
_____
No virus found in this incoming message.
<HR
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: | broken push rod suberu ea81 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
That is correct, just the initial adjustment which is very important.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Crowder
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 12:57 AM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
My understanding from Lance is that the turbos did have hydraulic
lifters and did not require adjustment.
Jim Crowder
At 11:51 PM 7/14/2006, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson"
>--> <janderson412@hotmail.com>
>
>If you might post a shot to me too Rick, do the NSI turbos have hyd
>lifters? John
>
>
>
>I will be out to the airport on the 17th and would be most happy to do
>that.
>
>Rick
>
>-----Original Message-----
>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
>Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 5:27 AM
>
>
>are you using an NSI and if so would you have a push rod handy to
>photograph? Please don't remove one but if you have one just laying
>around I would really like to see a pic.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John
>Anderson
>Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:28 PM
>
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson"
>
>Yes Rick, mine are are much thinker too and non turbo are the same. It
>does look like an after market item. John A.
>
>
> _____
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
>
>Humm, that looks like an aluminum custom type. Is it? The stock ones,
>at least on the turbo engine are steal, fat, real beefy. I don't have
>experience with the non-turbo, maybe someone else can comment. I would
>change to the tougher style, not good. Let me know.
>
>Rick
>
>-----Original Message-----
>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
>Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 6:26 PM
>
>
>sorry I must have forgotten to attach the photo so here it is
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of kirk hull
>Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:09 PM
>
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@sbcglobal.net>
>
>I had an in flight failure last week of N205AK's Suberu ea81. She was
>landed with no problems and everyone is ok. The push rod on the # 4
>cylinder ( Front right)snaped. Attached is a picture of the part . it
>made a clean break almost dead center on the rod completely in to.
>With only 20 hrs on the engine and only 5 in flight this should not
>have happened. Has anyone else seen this before and why did it happen?
>P.S. it is a 100HP Stratus =========================Navigator to
>Photoshare, and http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>=========================List Wiki!
>=========================http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>===================================
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Shop 'til you drop at XtraMSN Shopping
>http://shopping.xtramsn.co.nz/home/
>
>
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: | broken push rod suberu ea81 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Yes they do. Also lifter bores are bronze inserts.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Anderson
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 10:52 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson"
--> <janderson412@hotmail.com>
If you might post a shot to me too Rick, do the NSI turbos have hyd
lifters?
John
I will be out to the airport on the 17th and would be most happy to do
that.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 5:27 AM
are you using an NSI and if so would you have a push rod handy to
photograph? Please don't remove one but if you have one just laying
around I would really like to see a pic.
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John
Anderson
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:28 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson"
Yes Rick, mine are are much thinker too and non turbo are the same. It
does look like an after market item. John A.
_____
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Humm, that looks like an aluminum custom type. Is it? The stock ones, at
least on the turbo engine are steal, fat, real beefy. I don't have
experience with the non-turbo, maybe someone else can comment. I would
change to the tougher style, not good. Let me know.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 6:26 PM
sorry I must have forgotten to attach the photo so here it is
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of kirk hull
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:09 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@sbcglobal.net>
I had an in flight failure last week of N205AK's Suberu ea81. She was
landed with no problems and everyone is ok. The push rod on the # 4
cylinder ( Front right)snaped. Attached is a picture of the part . it
made a clean break almost dead center on the rod completely in to. With
only 20 hrs on the engine and only 5 in flight this should not have
happened. Has anyone else seen this before and why did it happen? P.S.
it is a 100HP Stratus =========================Navigator to Photoshare,
and http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
=========================List Wiki!
=========================http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
_________________________________________________________________
Shop 'til you drop at XtraMSN Shopping
http://shopping.xtramsn.co.nz/home/
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 |
|
I might be wrong about this but I believe that any A&P can do an annual on
an Experimental Aircraft, he or she does not need to be an AI.
I got the following off of EAA.ORG
Q & A: Question of the Week
Question For EAA Aviation Information Services:
I'm writing with some questions about FARs pertaining to airworthiness
inspections of homebuilt airplanes.
FAR 91.409 (Inspections) says:
(c) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to --
(1) An aircraft that carries a special flight permit, a current experimental
certificate, or a provisional airworthiness certificate;
Paragraph (a) is the annual inspection requirement. Does FAR 91.409 (c) (1)
exempt experimental category, amateur-built aircraft from the annual
inspection requirement? If not, what is it talking about?
Another question: If the annual inspection is required, may it be performed
and signed off by an A&P, or does it have to be an AI?
Answer: The requirement for an annual inspection, as called out in FAR
91.409(a)(1), is in fact nullified by the provisions of 91.409(c)(1) if the
aircraft has a provisional or experimental airworthiness certificate, or a
special flight permit. This is due to the fact that, by definition, the
annual inspection verifies that the aircraft in question meets it's type
design. Aircraft that have provisional or experimental airworthiness
certificates do not have a type design or type certificate to be compared
against. Thus, they cannot be inspected in accordance with an annual
inspection.
These aircraft which are covered by 91.409(c)(1) are instead governed by a
set of operating limitations. These operating limitations are issued along
with, and are part of, the airworthiness certificate for that specific
aircraft. In these operating limitations (OpLims) there will be the
requirement for a "condition inspection". This condition inspection will
commonly be required annually. The OpLims will also spell out who is
authorized to do this inspection, and in general it will require an A&P
mechanic. However, this A&P mechanic does NOT need an inspection
authorization (IA).
Hope that this helps. Brian Smith.
_____
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of eccles
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 7:39 PM
Hey Boys and Girls
who can i get to annual my Kitfox? A&P or do I need a IA?
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 |
|
Sorry, forgot the following. I believe that if you have the Repairmans
Certificate (or whatever it is called) for this particular aircraft then you
can do the Annual yourself. If you bought the aircraft you can do all of
the maintenance but at least an A&P has to do the annual. Brian Smith.
If I am incorrect in this someone please correct me. Hope this helps.
_____
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of eccles
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 7:39 PM
Hey Boys and Girls
who can i get to annual my Kitfox? A&P or do I need a IA?
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: A sight you'll never see again |
This was at least partially true in 2003 when it first circulated, but
is not true in 2006 (at least according to Snopes.com)
Clem Nichols
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger McConnell
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 7:48 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: A sight you'll never see again
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
This isn't Kitfox related but I thought everyone might
find this interesting.
Subject: Fw: A sight you'll never see again
**Our history lesson for today**
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Mars
The Red Planet is about to be spectacular!
This month and next, Earth is catching up with Mars in an encounter
that
will culminate in the closest approach between the two planets in
recorded history. The next time Mars may come this close is
in 2287. Due to the way Jupiter's gravity tugs on
Mars and perturbs its orbit, astronomers can only be
certain that Mars has not come this close to Earth
in the Last 5,000 years, but it may be as long as
60,000 years before it happens again.
The encounter will culminate on August 27th when
Mars comes to within 34,649,589 miles of Earth and
will be (next to the moon) the brightest object in
the night sky. It will attain a magnitude of - 2.9
and will appear 25.11 arc seconds wide. At a modest
75-power magnification
Mars will look as large as the full moon to the naked eye.
Mars will be easy to spot. At the
beginning of August it will rise in the east at 10p.m.
and reach its azimuth at about 3 a.m.
By the end of August when the two planets are
closest, Mars will rise at nightfall and reach its
highest point in the sky at 12:30a.m. That's pretty
convenient to see something that no human being has
seen in recorded history. So, mark your calendar at
the beginning of August to see Mars grow
progressively brighter and brighter throughout the
month.
Share this with your children and grandchildren.
NO ONE ALIVE TODAY WILL EVER SEE THIS AGAIN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
No virus found in this incoming message.
7/10/06
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
No virus found in this incoming message.
7/12/2006
<HR
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 |
|
An A&P. It is not an annual inspection,it is a condition inspection. But
needs to be done once a year. ;o)
Larry Huntley
----- Original Message -----
From: eccles
To: Kitfox-List@Matronics. Com
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 8:38 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Inspections
Hey Boys and Girls
who can i get to annual my Kitfox? A&P or do I need a IA?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
No virus found in this incoming message.
7/14/2006
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tires for sale |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Carriere <jimcarriere@yahoo.com>
I have a question or two... I can't seem to find a good, basic
explanation of aircraft tire sizes, but maybe someone can point me
in a good direction.
First, what tire sizes will fit on the 600x6 mainwheels most of us
have?
Second, what do the numbers mean? I take it one of them means
diameter and the other is width, but which is which? What about
tire measurements, and tires with three numbers (like 15x6.00-6).
Are the dashes, decimal points, and x'es significant?
Anyway, thanks
Jim in NW FL
Series 7 in progress
__________________________________________________
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: A sight you'll never see again |
Bummer! I was pretty jazzed about it, but fortunately I didn't pass it
on.
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: Clem Nichols
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: A sight you'll never see again
This was at least partially true in 2003 when it first circulated, but
is not true in 2006 (at least according to Snopes.com)
Clem Nichols
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger McConnell
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 7:48 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: A sight you'll never see again
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
This isn't Kitfox related but I thought everyone might
find this interesting.
Subject: Fw: A sight you'll never see again
**Our history lesson for today**
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Mars
The Red Planet is about to be spectacular!
This month and next, Earth is catching up with Mars in an
encounter that
will culminate in the closest approach between the two planets in
recorded history. The next time Mars may come this close is
in 2287. Due to the way Jupiter's gravity tugs on
Mars and perturbs its orbit, astronomers can only be
certain that Mars has not come this close to Earth
in the Last 5,000 years, but it may be as long as
60,000 years before it happens again.
The encounter will culminate on August 27th when
Mars comes to within 34,649,589 miles of Earth and
will be (next to the moon) the brightest object in
the night sky. It will attain a magnitude of - 2.9
and will appear 25.11 arc seconds wide. At a modest
75-power magnification
Mars will look as large as the full moon to the naked eye.
Mars will be easy to spot. At the
beginning of August it will rise in the east at 10p.m.
and reach its azimuth at about 3 a.m.
By the end of August when the two planets are
closest, Mars will rise at nightfall and reach its
highest point in the sky at 12:30a.m. That's pretty
convenient to see something that no human being has
seen in recorded history. So, mark your calendar at
the beginning of August to see Mars grow
progressively brighter and brighter throughout the
month.
Share this with your children and grandchildren.
NO ONE ALIVE TODAY WILL EVER SEE THIS AGAIN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
No virus found in this incoming message.
7/10/06
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
No virus found in this incoming message.
7/12/2006
<HR
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
If you are in the Kansas City area I would be happy to help you with that.
all that is required is an A&P
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of eccles
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 7:39 PM
To: Kitfox-List@Matronics. Com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Inspections
Hey Boys and Girls
who can i get to annual my Kitfox? A&P or do I need a IA?
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
the annual part is correct. As an A&P I have done some annuals on
homebuilts for new owners. As far a doing the rest of the maintenance I
believe that also requires an A&P.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian Smith
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 8:24 PM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Inspections
Sorry, forgot the following. I believe that if you have the Repairmans
Certificate (or whatever it is called) for this particular aircraft then you
can do the Annual yourself. If you bought the aircraft you can do all of
the maintenance but at least an A&P has to do the annual. Brian Smith.
If I am incorrect in this someone please correct me. Hope this helps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of eccles
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 7:39 PM
To: Kitfox-List@Matronics. Com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Inspections
Hey Boys and Girls
who can i get to annual my Kitfox? A&P or do I need a IA?
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | broken push rod suberu ea81 |
this pic is of a factory sub part in a Stratus conversion with solid lifters
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John
Anderson
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 12:48 AM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson"
<janderson412@hotmail.com>
Was this/these failures with hydraulic or solid lifters. All the original
turbo engines came out with hyd, any faulures in with these? John A.
Kirk,
Michael Harter had an NSI EA81 in his Model IV several years back. On
takeoff one time he lost power (not all) throttled back and returned to the
airport. He discovered several (not sure how many) broken push rods. He
replaced then with parts from NSI.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
kirk hull wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@sbcglobal.net>
I had an in flight failure last week of N205AK's Suberu ea81. She was landed
with no problems and everyone is ok. The push rod on the # 4 cylinder (
Front right)snaped. Attached is a picture of the part . it made a clean
break almost dead center on the rod completely in to. With only 20 hrs on
the engine and only 5 in flight this should not have happened. Has anyone
else seen this before and why did it happen? P.S. it is a 100HP Stratus
conversion.
_________________________________________________________________
Shop til you drop at XtraMSN Shopping http://shopping.xtramsn.co.nz/home/
Message 43
| 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: David Estapa <davestapa@juno.com>
A few months ago someone was asking about a Model 4 builders manual. I
recently purchased a trailer for a Model 4 tube gear and have since
modified it for my 5 Grove gear airplane. The fellow I got the trailer
from, his Dad built the airplane (which was later destroyed in an engine
out accident). He gave me all the construction manuals along with a
baggage floor and cover to the baggage compartment. I have no use for
these items and will give them to anybody who wants them for the cost of
freight. I'm driving to Oshkosh and could bring them to deliver to
anyone there that has a way to get them home. Let me know.
C. David Estapa
Woodstock, GA
N97DE S5TD
Message 44
| 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: Final Inspection |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: David Estapa <davestapa@juno.com>
Thanks for the help Guys.
Do Not Archive
C David Estapa
Woodstock, GA
N97DE S5TD
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:55:10 -0700 "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
writes:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>
> David,
>
> The Kitfox complies with the regs. The Kitfox is on the FAA
> approved list.
> Especially if you can document your 8 years. I found that when I
> had the
> inspection, the examiner was very familiar with the Kitfox and it's
> history.
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 7:52 AM
>
>
> > Second Try (after working on a Kitfox for 8 years I misspelled
> Kitfox in
> > the Matronics address!)
> >
> > I'm going through all the paper work for my Final Inspection. I
> came
> > across a check list on an FAA web site for items I need, and this
> > statement I don't understand: A program letter in accordance
> with 14
> > CFR section 21.191(g). Which I looked up and it says:
> > (g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the
> major
> > portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who
> > undertook the construction project solely for their own education
> or
> > recreation.
> > I think this refers to the 51% rule. Where do I get this. I know
> all
> > Kitfox kits meet this rule. Do I have to prove it?
> > I can't reach the DAR I want to use as he must be out of town. Any
> help
> > would be appreciated.
> >
> > C David Estapa
> > Woodstock, GA
> > N97DE S5 TD
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 45
| 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: Tires for sale |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "darinh" <gerns25@netscape.net>
Jim,
Try this link. It explains the 3 different types of tire sized and gives you about
every useful bit of information you would need about most sizes of tires.
[link]http://www.goodyearaviation.com/tiredatabook.html[/link]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=47529#47529
Message 46
| 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: "RAY Gignac" <kitfoxpilot@msn.com>
Your right, if your not the builder you can do the work yourself and then
have an A&P inspect then sign off! he or she does not have to have an"I".
Now, if your not up to speed on your fox, then you shouold have someone with
knowledge with the fox to help you.
Ray
>From: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@sbcglobal.net>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Inspections
>Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:08:35 -0500
>
>the annual part is correct. As an A&P I have done some annuals on
>homebuilts for new owners. As far a doing the rest of the maintenance I
>believe that also requires an A&P.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian Smith
> Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 8:24 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Inspections
>
>
> Sorry, forgot the following. I believe that if you have the Repairmans
>Certificate (or whatever it is called) for this particular aircraft then
>you
>can do the Annual yourself. If you bought the aircraft you can do all of
>the maintenance but at least an A&P has to do the annual. Brian Smith.
>
> If I am incorrect in this someone please correct me. Hope this helps.
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of eccles
> Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 7:39 PM
> To: Kitfox-List@Matronics. Com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Inspections
>
>
> Hey Boys and Girls
> who can i get to annual my Kitfox? A&P or do I need a IA?
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! --
|