Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:59 AM - Fw: THE BOEING 797: American Answer to the Airbus A380 (Clem Nichols)
2. 06:26 AM - Polytone over old polytone with carnauba. New question (Jose M. Toro)
3. 06:42 AM - Re: Fw: THE BOEING 797: American Answer to the Airbus A380 (Michel Verheughe)
4. 07:27 AM - Re: Fw: THE BOEING 797: American Answer to the Airbus A380 (Don Pearsall)
5. 08:24 AM - removing aerothane (Dave G.)
6. 08:40 AM - removing aerothane. (Dave G.)
7. 08:41 AM - Re: THE BOEING 797: American Answer to the Airbus A380 (wingnut)
8. 09:00 AM - Re: Polytone over old polytone with carnauba. New question (Marco Menezes)
9. 09:02 AM - spar removal (Dave G.)
10. 10:05 AM - Re: Rotax 912 - WAS article (kitfoxmike)
11. 11:07 AM - Re: Rotax 912 - WAS article (darinh)
12. 11:34 AM - Re: Re: Rotax 912 - WAS article (Lowell Fitt)
13. 11:47 AM - Re: Re: THE BOEING 797: American Answer to the Airbus A380 (Clem Nichols)
14. 11:47 AM - Re: Re: Rotax 912 - WAS article (Michel Verheughe)
15. 12:23 PM - Re: Rotax 912 - WAS article (Richard Rabbers)
16. 12:32 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 912 - WAS article (Scott Patterson)
17. 12:36 PM - Re: removing aerothane (RAY Gignac)
18. 01:18 PM - Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912 (Michel Verheughe)
19. 01:31 PM - Re: removing aerothane (Dave G.)
20. 01:54 PM - Re: removing aerothane (RAY Gignac)
21. 02:08 PM - Re: Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912 (Richard Rabbers)
22. 02:30 PM - Re: removing aerothane (Dave G.)
23. 02:38 PM - Re: Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912 (Dave G.)
24. 03:27 PM - Re: Polytone over old polytone with carnauba. New question (Dave and Diane)
25. 04:20 PM - Re: Rotax 912 - WAS article (RichWill)
26. 04:28 PM - Re: Kitfox Crash talk after the fact (RichWill)
27. 05:17 PM - Re: Polytone over old polytone with carnauba. New question (Jose M. Toro)
28. 05:50 PM - Re: spar removal (Noel Loveys)
29. 06:00 PM - Re: Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912 (Noel Loveys)
30. 06:05 PM - Re: Re: Kitfox Crash talk after the fact (JC)
31. 06:14 PM - Re: Re: Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912 (Noel Loveys)
32. 06:14 PM - Re: Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912 (Noel Loveys)
33. 06:18 PM - Re: Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912 (Dave)
34. 06:19 PM - Re: Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912 (Noel Loveys)
35. 06:28 PM - Re: Polytone over old polytone with carnauba. New question (Dave and Diane)
36. 06:28 PM - Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912 (Dave)
37. 06:35 PM - Re: removing aerothane (jeff puls)
38. 06:55 PM - First Flight. The Short and the Long. (Guy Buchanan)
39. 07:21 PM - oil injection filter (Larry Martin)
40. 08:01 PM - Re: First Flight. The Short and the Long. (Randy Daughenbaugh)
41. 08:26 PM - Re: removing aerothane (Lowell Fitt)
42. 08:56 PM - Re: First Flight. The Short and the Long. (QSS)
43. 09:34 PM - Re: First Flight. The Short and the Long. (Lowell Fitt)
44. 09:36 PM - Re: First Flight. The Short and the Long. (Marco Menezes)
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: | Fw: THE BOEING 797: American Answer to the Airbus A380 |
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 5:49 AM
>
> -------------------
>
> Subject: Boeing 797
>>>
>>>
>>>
> Boeing is taking on Airbus with a 1,000 passenger
> jet that could reshape the air-travel industry for the
> next 100 years.
>
> The radical Blended Wing design has been deve-
> loped by Boeing in cooperation with the NASA
> Langley Research Centre. The mammoth plane
> will have a wing span of 265 feet compared to the
> 747's 211 feet, and is designed to fit within the
> newly created terminals used for the 555 seat
> Airbus A380, which is 262 feet wide.
>
> The new 797 is in direct response to the Airbus
> A380 which has racked up 159 orders, but has
> not yet flown any passengers.
>
> Boeing has decided to kill its 747X stretched
> super jumbo in 2003 after little interest was
> shown by airline companies, but has con-
> tinued to develop the ultimate Airbus crusher
> 797 for the past several years at its Phantom
> Works research facility in Long Beach CA.
>
> The Airbus A380 has been in the works since
> 1999 and has accumulated $13 billion in
> development costs, which gives Boeing a
> huge advantage now that Airbus has com-
> mitted to the older style tubular aircraft for
> decades to come.
>
> There are several huge advantages to
> the blended wing design, the most impor-
> tant being the lift to drag ratio which is ex-
> pected to increase by an amazing 50%,
> with overall weight reduced by 25%, making
> it an estimated 33% more efficient than the
> A380, and making Airbus's $13 billion dollar
> investment look pretty shaky.
>
> High body rigidy is another key factor in
> blended wing aircraft. It reduces turbulence
> and creates less stress on the air frame which
> adds to efficiency, giving the 797 a tremendous
> 8,800 nautical mile range with its 1,000 passengers
> flying comfortably at Mach .88 or 654 mph (1,046 km/h)
> cruising speed....another advantage over the Airbus
> tube-and-wing designed A380's 570 mph (912km/h).
>
> The exact date for introduction is unclear, yet the
> battle lines are clearly drawn in the high-stakes
> war for civilian air supremacy.
>
> Check out the two attachments below:
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: | Polytone over old polytone with carnauba. New question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Hi All:
In one of the e-mails on this topic, somebody
mentioned a product that must be applied to the old
paint before applying the new paint in order to get an
appropriate blend. In that e-mail, it was mentioned
that, if this product is not used, the new paint would
eventually peel of. Maybe my wording is not correct,
but this is the idea.
Could you tell me which is the product? Would it work
with clear paint applied to dacron? I'm sorry I lost
the originally posted information.
Thanks
Jose
__________________________________________________
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: Fw: THE BOEING 797: American Answer to the Airbus A380 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Jul 26, 2006, at 1:52 PM, Clem Nichols wrote:
>> the most impor-
>> tant being the lift to drag ratio which is ex-
>> pected to increase by an amazing 50%,
Very interesting, Clem.
I was once interested in WIG (Wing In Ground) aircraft. You know, those
weird birds that fly only a few feet over the water. On their web site
/ forum, these guys have a diagram showing the lift to drag ratio of
any kind of transport, from donkey to 747.
It turns out that any form for transport can be calculated as the
weight transported, against the energy needed. Weight is overcome by
lift, and drag by power. Thus the lift to drag ratio tells how
economical a mean of transport can be. Time is not considered as a
factor in this diagram. It shows that if a 747 at cruise speed has a
better lift to drag ratio than say, a tanker ship, the one really
beating everyone is the WIG, using the ground effect to float on a
"cushion."
The problem with the WIG is that ICAO says it's no plane, and IMO
(International Maritime Organisation) says it's no ship. The only
countries that have tried commercial WIGs are China and former Soviet.
Those guys didn't bother to see how it would disturb, say fishermen,
etc. they just did it. But in our waterways, it would be a problem to
see, e.g. the Russian Orlyonok, flying at 210 knots ... two meters over
the mast of my sailboat! .... heeeelp! :-)
The bottom line: Yes, if Boeing can achieve that, it will be a fierce
competitor to Airbus.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: | Fw: THE BOEING 797: American Answer to the Airbus A380 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall@comcast.net>
Pretty cool (but artists conception) pics, and that would be a radical
plane. I don't think Boeing is working on anything like this seriously. I
live here right next to Boeing and have never heard of a project like this.
Anyone know something different?
Don Pearsall
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clem Nichols
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 4:53 AM
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 5:49 AM
>
> -------------------
>
> Subject: Boeing 797
>>>
>>>
>>>
> Boeing is taking on Airbus with a 1,000 passenger
> jet that could reshape the air-travel industry for the
> next 100 years.
>
> The radical Blended Wing design has been deve-
> loped by Boeing in cooperation with the NASA
> Langley Research Centre. The mammoth plane
> will have a wing span of 265 feet compared to the
> 747's 211 feet, and is designed to fit within the
> newly created terminals used for the 555 seat
> Airbus A380, which is 262 feet wide.
>
> The new 797 is in direct response to the Airbus
> A380 which has racked up 159 orders, but has
> not yet flown any passengers.
>
> Boeing has decided to kill its 747X stretched
> super jumbo in 2003 after little interest was
> shown by airline companies, but has con-
> tinued to develop the ultimate Airbus crusher
> 797 for the past several years at its Phantom
> Works research facility in Long Beach CA.
>
> The Airbus A380 has been in the works since
> 1999 and has accumulated $13 billion in
> development costs, which gives Boeing a
> huge advantage now that Airbus has com-
> mitted to the older style tubular aircraft for
> decades to come.
>
> There are several huge advantages to
> the blended wing design, the most impor-
> tant being the lift to drag ratio which is ex-
> pected to increase by an amazing 50%,
> with overall weight reduced by 25%, making
> it an estimated 33% more efficient than the
> A380, and making Airbus's $13 billion dollar
> investment look pretty shaky.
>
> High body rigidy is another key factor in
> blended wing aircraft. It reduces turbulence
> and creates less stress on the air frame which
> adds to efficiency, giving the 797 a tremendous
> 8,800 nautical mile range with its 1,000 passengers
> flying comfortably at Mach .88 or 654 mph (1,046 km/h)
> cruising speed....another advantage over the Airbus
> tube-and-wing designed A380's 570 mph (912km/h).
>
> The exact date for introduction is unclear, yet the
> battle lines are clearly drawn in the high-stakes
> war for civilian air supremacy.
>
> Check out the two attachments below:
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: | removing aerothane |
I have a couple of areas where the fabric must be repaired after it was
cut away to assess the structure underneath. In some cases it's just as
easy to replace the whole area, but on some such as the tail area below
the stabilizer I want to patch it. The Polyfiber manual says to sand off
the aerothane, technique is probably important, anybody engaged in this
activity?
Here is a picture of the affected areas.
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: | removing aerothane. |
The picture was supposed to be smaller, I did resize it using image
resizer and then sent the wrong one. Please do not post your extreme
outrage for the two minutes (at 28.8) to the list. I apologize to most
of those inconvenienced.
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: THE BOEING 797: American Answer to the Airbus A380 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
A quick google search turned up nothing but urban legend.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=49930#49930
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: Polytone over old polytone with carnauba. New question |
Hi Jose.
I recall those products to be poly fiber 2200 (paint remover) and 2210 (metal-sol).
do not archive
"Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro"
Hi All:
In one of the e-mails on this topic, somebody
mentioned a product that must be applied to the old
paint before applying the new paint in order to get an
appropriate blend. In that e-mail, it was mentioned
that, if this product is not used, the new paint would
eventually peel of. Maybe my wording is not correct,
but this is the idea.
Could you tell me which is the product? Would it work
with clear paint applied to dacron? I'm sorry I lost
the originally posted information.
Thanks
Jose
__________________________________________________
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
__________________________________________________
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 |
|
Those who responded may recall that I have been removing the rear spars
from my wings for replacement. one has a slight dent/bend and the other
was repaired with a splice and I was advised to replace both. I have
several pictures of the removal, ignore the huge scratches on the insert
I did that while removing it. The adhesive that is pictured cut away
from the rib is the original 3M adhesive not Hysol which has proved
somewhat more difficult to remove.
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/occom/Kitfox%20/
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: | Re: Rotax 912 - WAS article |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxmike" <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com>
I absolutely love my 912ul, when I get to fly by myself, like last night, it takes
a while to get the smile off my face after landing. My 4 will do a consistant
90kts. GPS. I believe it goes down about 4kts. when I'm at gross, and goes
up about 4kts when I am by myself and half tanks. My advice on going over
water for 30miles on any airplane is to get one those self inflating life vest.
--------
kitfoxmike
kitfox4 1200 912ul speedster
http://www.frappr.com/kitfoxmike
rv7 wingkit
reserved 287RV
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=49947#49947
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: Rotax 912 - WAS article |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "darinh" <gerns25@netscape.net>
I agree on the floatation device. I would take one or at least a self inflating
raft. I believe this is actually in the FAR/AIM as a requirement when flying
furthar than X miles from a shoreline (can't remember what the X value is though).
Darin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=49953#49953
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: Rotax 912 - WAS article |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Scott,
Obviously one's experience doesn't necessarily transfer to another, but I
suspect that after you spend the day or two from Michigan to the Southern
California Coast, you will be quite comfortable with the 912. I was at the
forum two years ago at Oshkosh when Rotax Guru Eric Tucker said that if the
engine is running it will get you there. I guess what I would do is stop on
the coast side, refuel, check out the fluids - coolant and oil, check for
sign of leakage in the oil lines etc. and go for it. I remember a time in
Northern Montana when we were flying over a broad valley totally obscured in
fog. It was a bit unnerving and interestingly enough hearing becomes more
acute as we all thought we were hearing strange sounds from our engines -
our imaginations went wild. The one thing that gave me a bit of comfort was
the GPS that showed the track of the highway. I knew that would be the low
spot in the terrain and knew if I had a problem, I at least knew how to
avoid the mountains.
I think the life vest idea would be very prudent and if your home base will
be Catalina, then I suspect it will be regular equipment anyway.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 6:28 PM
> Darin,
>
> Thank you for your response. N61724.
>
> My concern is about the TBO of 1500/10 years. The previous owner was
> killed
> in an automobile accident, and it languished in a hanger thereafter. It
> has
> 100 hours TTE/TTAF, and a current Condition Inspection, but as I'll be
> flying over water (30 miles) to Catalina Island, I need to be prudent.
>
> Any thoughts on the advisability of a full overhaul as a precaution?
>
>
> --
>
> Scott Patterson
>
> S & P Brokerage, LLC
> 1339 Playa Azul, PO Box 2588
> Avalon, CA 90704
>
> 310-510-2392 Office
> 310-510-2371 Fax
> 310-433-7728 Cell
>
> scott@spbrokerage.com
>
>
> Check Out My Recently Published Novel:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1425937810
>
>
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 BOEING 797: American Answer to the Airbus A380 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Interesting. I just googled Boeing 797, and came up with 323,000 hits.
Needless to say I haven't checked them all out yet. There is nothing at all
about the subject on www.snopes.com.
Clem Nichols
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:40 AM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
>
> A quick google search turned up nothing but urban legend.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=49930#49930
>
>
>
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: Rotax 912 - WAS article |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Jul 26, 2006, at 8:04 PM, darinh wrote:
> I would take one or at least a self inflating raft.
... Uh? Someone's talking about the sea and ... I was asleep? :-)
Here is what I would do if I was to fly long distance over the water:
No survival raft. They are expensive, require yearly inspection and you
would probably never manage to deploy it and board it from a sinking
Kitfox.
My solution would be a survival suit and a hand-held EPIRB (the
maritime equivalent of a ELT that also works on the Cospar-Sarsat
satellites). Let's face it, if you ditch in the water, you won't have
many hours to be recovered, raft or not. The suit will keep you warm
and dry until the SAR helicopter is over you. One drawback, though, the
suit can be like a Turkish bath in a Kitfox cockpit.
Cheers,
Michel
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: Rotax 912 - WAS article |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard Rabbers" <rira1950@yahoo.com>
> I agree on the floatation device. I would take one or at least a self inflating
raft. I believe this is actually in the FAR/AIM as a requirement when flying
furthar than X miles from a shoreline (can't remember what the X value is though).
Gliding distance to shore - otherwise - personal floation device and at least one
pyro device. Raft is not required, and also very heavy... but makes floating
a little more comfortable. Actual floats are another alternative though ocean
surface may not be 'friendly'
Richard
Lots of over single engine water time... always carried a raft, never used it.
Had two events could be considered close calls, both long stories.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=49972#49972
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: Rotax 912 - WAS article |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott Patterson <scott@lifeseeker.com>
Michel,
Thank you for your recommendation.
Are you aware of any Light Sport regs concerning over water operation? I
combed the FARs, and Light Sport Rules, and only found water landing regs.
--
Scott Patterson
S & P Brokerage, LLC
1339 Playa Azul, PO Box 2588
Avalon, CA 90704
310-510-2392 Office
310-510-2371 Fax
310-433-7728 Cell
scott@spbrokerage.com
Check Out My Recently Published Novel:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1425937810
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 |
|
| Subject: | removing aerothane |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "RAY Gignac" <kitfoxpilot@msn.com>
This is how I removed aerothane for a tube repair! first you use any
hardware store paint stripper, brush it on but don't turn your back it works
fast. The paint stripper will soften up the aerothane so you can scrape the
aerothane off. next you will have to clean the bare fabric then reglue new
fabric on and paint. now make sure you use white paint over the silver so
that your yellow will blend good. I have photos of my repair if you like.
Ray
>From: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Kitfox-List: removing aerothane
>Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:21:47 -0300
>
>I have a couple of areas where the fabric must be repaired after it was cut
>away to assess the structure underneath. In some cases it's just as easy
>to replace the whole area, but on some such as the tail area below the
>stabilizer I want to patch it. The Polyfiber manual says to sand off the
>aerothane, technique is probably important, anybody engaged in this
>activity?
>
>Here is a picture of the affected areas.
><< kitfoxwing012.jpg >>
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: | Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Jul 26, 2006, at 9:31 PM, Scott Patterson wrote:
> Are you aware of any Light Sport regs concerning over water operation?
Only the Norwegian ultralight aircraft rule that says: max 10 km from
the coast, Scott. But they consider removing it.
One think I'd like to add from my lifetime sailing experience: From all
the stories I read, trying to get into a life raft is extremely
dangerous and it gives a false sense of security. The Fastnet race
disaster of 1979 is a good example: If I remember correctly, 16 persons
died yet only one sailboat sank. They others were found dead in the
water or on a raft, while their ship was still floating.
My thinking is: Stay with the ship until you stand on the spreaders
(half way up the mast) and have water up to your shoulders.
When I sailed single handed to south Europe, I had made a watertight
door that separated my sailboat in two, giving enough buoyancy, even
if the bow was smashed by a whale of a half sunk container (a real
danger!).
So, my Kitfox thinking has been: If I was to cross a long stretch of
water, I'd like to find a way to add buoyancy to the fuselage with e.g.
a lot of inflated balloons. Has anybody been thinking in that
direction?
Whenever I fly over the water, I also make sure that I note any vessel
nearby. If I should then suffer an engine stop, I would notify ATC of
my position and the vessel in question and they would contact at once
the nearest rescue station that would contact the vessel via the now
compulsory GMDSS system.
Still one question remains: Ditch nose in the wind or parallel to the
swell?
Cheers,
Michel
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: removing aerothane |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
Thanks Ray, and also Jeff who replied offline. I'll try it with the old MEK
(which by the way is the same mix of MEK, toluene and another that the loacl
auto paint store sells) and a paint remover this weekend. I'm learning to
dislike aerothane, if I had built new I would certainly go with polytone.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 4:35 PM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "RAY Gignac" <kitfoxpilot@msn.com>
>
> This is how I removed aerothane for a tube repair! first you use any
> hardware store paint stripper, brush it on but don't turn your back it
> works fast. The paint stripper will soften up the aerothane so you can
> scrape the aerothane off. next you will have to clean the bare fabric
> then reglue new fabric on and paint. now make sure you use white paint
> over the silver so that your yellow will blend good. I have photos of my
> repair if you like.
>
> Ray
>
>
>>From: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
>>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: Kitfox-List: removing aerothane
>>Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:21:47 -0300
>>
>>I have a couple of areas where the fabric must be repaired after it was
>>cut away to assess the structure underneath. In some cases it's just as
>>easy to replace the whole area, but on some such as the tail area below
>>the stabilizer I want to patch it. The Polyfiber manual says to sand off
>>the aerothane, technique is probably important, anybody engaged in this
>>activity?
>>
>>Here is a picture of the affected areas.
>
>
>><< kitfoxwing012.jpg >>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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: removing aerothane |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "RAY Gignac" <kitfoxpilot@msn.com>
Aerothane is a pain to repair, but sure looks nice! forgot to tell you,
while your using the pain stripper, make sure the fabric does not roll up on
you. I used a small block of wood under the fabric while I was removing the
old aerothane.
>From: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: removing aerothane
>Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:30:17 -0300
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
>
>Thanks Ray, and also Jeff who replied offline. I'll try it with the old MEK
>(which by the way is the same mix of MEK, toluene and another that the
>loacl auto paint store sells) and a paint remover this weekend. I'm
>learning to dislike aerothane, if I had built new I would certainly go with
>polytone.
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 4:35 PM
>
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "RAY Gignac" <kitfoxpilot@msn.com>
>>
>>This is how I removed aerothane for a tube repair! first you use any
>>hardware store paint stripper, brush it on but don't turn your back it
>>works fast. The paint stripper will soften up the aerothane so you can
>>scrape the aerothane off. next you will have to clean the bare fabric
>>then reglue new fabric on and paint. now make sure you use white paint
>>over the silver so that your yellow will blend good. I have photos of my
>>repair if you like.
>>
>>Ray
>>
>>
>>>From: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
>>>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>>Subject: Kitfox-List: removing aerothane
>>>Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:21:47 -0300
>>>
>>>I have a couple of areas where the fabric must be repaired after it was
>>>cut away to assess the structure underneath. In some cases it's just as
>>>easy to replace the whole area, but on some such as the tail area below
>>>the stabilizer I want to patch it. The Polyfiber manual says to sand off
>>>the aerothane, technique is probably important, anybody engaged in this
>>>activity?
>>>
>>>Here is a picture of the affected areas.
>>
>>
>>><< kitfoxwing012.jpg >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>>http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
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: Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard Rabbers" <rira1950@yahoo.com>
> Michel - So, my Kitfox thinking has been: If I was to cross a long stretch of
water, I'd like to find a way to add buoyancy to the fuselage with e.g. a lot
of inflated balloons. Has anybody been thinking in that
> direction?
Michel - your balloon idea is good! - you've probably read of larger boats being
raised with garbage bags - which would probably make a more durable balloon.
Filling the tail area would provide more than enough Buoyancy to keep a Kitfox,
a bit like a duck, tail up.... in the water and would allow you to 'stay with
the ship', and hopefully even salvage it.
It may be more likely to have calm water than rough in a ditch vs a sailboat storm
sinking. I always figured, if it came to it, I'd toss the raft out before
the ditch, then if I could swim... I... and any seach party would have a visual
target in addition to EPIRB signal. I also normally fly over warm water. Cold
- your survial suit would be a big help though hard to imagine sitting, fully
suited in a tiny cockpit. (it would make a good picture:)
OFF topic
- on the water theme....
A friends 45 ft sailboat - STEEL - sank at the dock last Sunday as a result of
a 1/2 by 1/16 inch crack in a valve just inboard of a through hull fitting.
I guess it filled up slowly with the leak, then when the hull was low to the level
of the center board trunk cable - the last was very fast..
Fortunitly he was in shallow water. And using his VAN, and halyard, we righted
him enough to add a bit to the cockpit combing then pump, pump, pump. Diesel
was running the next day... still quite a miss.
Moral to this none-flying story....(just because you think your tuff (steel) don't
leave the bilge pump off !!!!! i.e. take all reasonable precautions)
My boat is wood... I have redudant DC pumps & batteries and AC pump behind the
DC then a streaming alarm (hello word - with not to call me / and instructions
for manual pumping) if all that fails.... and water level sensor and auto-dialer
that calls my cell phone.
Richard - sailor & someday Kitfox flyer.
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=49993#49993
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: removing aerothane |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
Thanks Ray, feel free to send pics directly to me if you have time. I'd love
to see them.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 5:53 PM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "RAY Gignac" <kitfoxpilot@msn.com>
>
> Aerothane is a pain to repair, but sure looks nice! forgot to tell you,
> while your using the pain stripper, make sure the fabric does not roll up
> on you. I used a small block of wood under the fabric while I was
> removing the old aerothane.
>
>
>>From: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
>>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: removing aerothane
>>Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:30:17 -0300
>>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
>>
>>Thanks Ray, and also Jeff who replied offline. I'll try it with the old
>>MEK (which by the way is the same mix of MEK, toluene and another that the
>>loacl auto paint store sells) and a paint remover this weekend. I'm
>>learning to dislike aerothane, if I had built new I would certainly go
>>with polytone.
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 4:35 PM
>>
>>
>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "RAY Gignac" <kitfoxpilot@msn.com>
>>>
>>>This is how I removed aerothane for a tube repair! first you use any
>>>hardware store paint stripper, brush it on but don't turn your back it
>>>works fast. The paint stripper will soften up the aerothane so you can
>>>scrape the aerothane off. next you will have to clean the bare fabric
>>>then reglue new fabric on and paint. now make sure you use white paint
>>>over the silver so that your yellow will blend good. I have photos of my
>>>repair if you like.
>>>
>>>Ray
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
>>>>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>>>Subject: Kitfox-List: removing aerothane
>>>>Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:21:47 -0300
>>>>
>>>>I have a couple of areas where the fabric must be repaired after it was
>>>>cut away to assess the structure underneath. In some cases it's just as
>>>>easy to replace the whole area, but on some such as the tail area below
>>>>the stabilizer I want to patch it. The Polyfiber manual says to sand off
>>>>the aerothane, technique is probably important, anybody engaged in this
>>>>activity?
>>>>
>>>>Here is a picture of the affected areas.
>>>
>>>
>>>><< kitfoxwing012.jpg >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>>>http://wiki.matronics.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>>http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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: Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
> Still one question remains: Ditch nose in the wind or parallel to the
> swell?
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
Now there's a question!! Given my experiences with the sea and waves, I
think this might be one time I'd prefer a downwind landing! If you hit just
right maybe you could surf to shore!!
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: Polytone over old polytone with carnauba. New question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dave and Diane <ddsyverson@comcast.net>
Jose,
I think I can figure out what you are looking for - the Poly Fiber product I
believe you are talking about is the RJ Rejuvinator. The purpose of this
product is to allow the old and new paint to become sufficiently intimate
that they never want to separate - it basically softens up the old polytone
so the the new paint will adhere to the old layer.
One of the first things I got when starting on my project (since I was going
to use the polyfiber system) was the Polyfiber procedures manual #1, edition
20 - all of the products are described as well as the procedures to use them.
Best $20 I ever spent for the covering part of the project. For a plus, the
book is written in a style that makes it easy to understand - no secret
codes.
Sincerely,
Dave S.
St Paul, MN
Model 7 Trigear
Do Not Archive
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 8:24 am, Jose M. Toro wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
>
> Hi All:
>
> In one of the e-mails on this topic, somebody
> mentioned a product that must be applied to the old
> paint
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: Rotax 912 - WAS article |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "RichWill" <rwill1@adelphia.net>
I currently own and drive a Model III with the 912UL.. 80hp, 3blade GSC wood prop.
Agree and concur with the stats.. Rotate at 200' , climb 1000-1200fpm, cruise
75-85mph at 75%power... It's a great engine and plenty of gitty up when you
need it... Flew a similar 582 and just so much more go.... than that!!!
I weigh in at 235lbs and I can fly S&L with no hands at 3500rpm... I love it!!
Rich
N50PC
--------
Semper Fi
15 ITT
G2 HqCo HqBn
1st MarDiv
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=50020#50020
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: Kitfox Crash talk after the fact |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "RichWill" <rwill1@adelphia.net>
Ditto... 225hrs in 9 years??? Or 25 hours a year...!! Not saying , dead stick
landing is any picnic, nor would I like to exp one as a surprize..but experience
counts for alot here... Heck , I fly at least 100hrs a year and probably do
25 of that on shortfields and deadsticks...
--------
Semper Fi
15 ITT
G2 HqCo HqBn
1st MarDiv
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=50023#50023
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: Polytone over old polytone with carnauba. New question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Dave:
Would this work on dupont urethane clear paint applied
over dacron?
Jose
--- Dave and Diane <ddsyverson@comcast.net> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dave and Diane
> <ddsyverson@comcast.net>
>
> Jose,
>
> I think I can figure out what you are looking for -
> the Poly Fiber product I
> believe you are talking about is the RJ Rejuvinator.
> The purpose of this
> product is to allow the old and new paint to become
> sufficiently intimate
> that they never want to separate - it basically
> softens up the old polytone
> so the the new paint will adhere to the old layer.
>
> One of the first things I got when starting on my
> project (since I was going
> to use the polyfiber system) was the Polyfiber
> procedures manual #1, edition
> 20 - all of the products are described as well as
> the procedures to use them.
> Best $20 I ever spent for the covering part of the
> project. For a plus, the
> book is written in a style that makes it easy to
> understand - no secret
> codes.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dave S.
> St Paul, MN
> Model 7 Trigear
>
> Do Not Archive
>
> On Wednesday 26 July 2006 8:24 am, Jose M. Toro
> wrote:
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro"
> <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
> >
> > Hi All:
> >
> > In one of the e-mails on this topic, somebody
> > mentioned a product that must be applied to the
> old
> > paint
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Thanks for the pictures... I'm confident you made the right decision to
replace those spars!
Noel
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave G.
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:32 PM
Those who responded may recall that I have been removing the rear spars
from
my wings for replacement. one has a slight dent/bend and the other was
repaired with a splice and I was advised to replace both. I have several
pictures of the removal, ignore the huge scratches on the insert I did
that
while removing it. The adhesive that is pictured cut away from the rib
is
the original 3M adhesive not Hysol which has proved somewhat more
difficult
to remove.
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/occom/Kitfox%20/
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: | Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Ditch into the wind or parallel to the swells???? I guess that depends on
force and direction of the wind and the height of the sea. E.g. if the wind
is perpendicular to lower seas and there is a lot of wind then ditch into
the wind.( you'll be going slower) if the seas are very high ditch parallel
to the seas on the top of a swell.
Just my opinion.
Noel
Living on the coast of the North Atlantic
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Michel Verheughe
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 5:47 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> On Jul 26, 2006, at 9:31 PM, Scott Patterson wrote:
> > Are you aware of any Light Sport regs concerning over water
> operation?
>
> Only the Norwegian ultralight aircraft rule that says: max 10 km from
> the coast, Scott. But they consider removing it.
>
> One think I'd like to add from my lifetime sailing
> experience: From all
> the stories I read, trying to get into a life raft is extremely
> dangerous and it gives a false sense of security. The Fastnet race
> disaster of 1979 is a good example: If I remember correctly,
> 16 persons
> died yet only one sailboat sank. They others were found dead in the
> water or on a raft, while their ship was still floating.
>
> My thinking is: Stay with the ship until you stand on the spreaders
> (half way up the mast) and have water up to your shoulders.
> When I sailed single handed to south Europe, I had made a watertight
> door that separated my sailboat in two, giving enough buoyancy, even
> if the bow was smashed by a whale of a half sunk container (a real
> danger!).
>
> So, my Kitfox thinking has been: If I was to cross a long stretch of
> water, I'd like to find a way to add buoyancy to the fuselage
> with e.g.
> a lot of inflated balloons. Has anybody been thinking in that
> direction?
>
> Whenever I fly over the water, I also make sure that I note
> any vessel
> nearby. If I should then suffer an engine stop, I would notify ATC of
> my position and the vessel in question and they would contact at once
> the nearest rescue station that would contact the vessel via the now
> compulsory GMDSS system.
>
> Still one question remains: Ditch nose in the wind or parallel to the
> swell?
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Kitfox Crash talk after the fact |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "JC" <jc@arcom.com.au>
Talk about dead stick landings, I had one on my first flight in my own plane
Aeropup from 800 ft turning onto final, diverted into a ploughed paddock and
no damage, it landed better without engine Rotax 2 stroke than with engine
ticking over, at the time I had not passed that in my training so the
instructor said he could tick that one off ! and it was my first flight in
that type.
rgds
John
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: Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Flotation is nice to have..... But...(I hate that word)
Make sure whatever you use for flotation won't, make the can't interfere
with the operation of your controls. I think I would rather have flotation
outboard of the wing tanks where there are no moving parts to jam.
If you are up to it see if you can adapt a pop out float for a helicopter.
Install it along the bottom of your fuselage. Then if you really have to
ditch you will have something soft to land on. Check with some helicopter
companies they may have some time-exed pop outs they may be willing to give
you as long as you won't be installing into a certified aircraft. You can
also start form scratch and design a pop out specifically for the 'Fox.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Richard Rabbers
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:37 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard Rabbers"
> <rira1950@yahoo.com>
>
>
> > Michel - So, my Kitfox thinking has been: If I was to cross
> a long stretch of water, I'd like to find a way to add
> buoyancy to the fuselage with e.g. a lot of inflated
> balloons. Has anybody been thinking in that
> > direction?
>
>
> Michel - your balloon idea is good! - you've probably read of
> larger boats being raised with garbage bags - which would
> probably make a more durable balloon. Filling the tail area
> would provide more than enough Buoyancy to keep a Kitfox, a
> bit like a duck, tail up.... in the water and would allow you
> to 'stay with the ship', and hopefully even salvage it.
>
> It may be more likely to have calm water than rough in a
> ditch vs a sailboat storm sinking. I always figured, if it
> came to it, I'd toss the raft out before the ditch, then if I
> could swim... I... and any seach party would have a visual
> target in addition to EPIRB signal. I also normally fly over
> warm water. Cold - your survial suit would be a big help
> though hard to imagine sitting, fully suited in a tiny
> cockpit. (it would make a good picture:)
>
> OFF topic
> - on the water theme....
> A friends 45 ft sailboat - STEEL - sank at the dock last
> Sunday as a result of a 1/2 by 1/16 inch crack in a valve
> just inboard of a through hull fitting.
> I guess it filled up slowly with the leak, then when the hull
> was low to the level of the center board trunk cable - the
> last was very fast..
> Fortunitly he was in shallow water. And using his VAN, and
> halyard, we righted him enough to add a bit to the cockpit
> combing then pump, pump, pump. Diesel was running the next
> day... still quite a miss.
>
> Moral to this none-flying story....(just because you think
> your tuff (steel) don't leave the bilge pump off !!!!! i.e.
> take all reasonable precautions)
>
> My boat is wood... I have redudant DC pumps & batteries and
> AC pump behind the DC then a streaming alarm (hello word -
> with not to call me / and instructions for manual pumping) if
> all that fails.... and water level sensor and auto-dialer
> that calls my cell phone.
>
> Richard - sailor & someday Kitfox flyer.
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=49993#49993
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Surf ten K to shore.... Surely you jest ;^}
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave G.
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:06 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
>
> > Still one question remains: Ditch nose in the wind or
> parallel to the
> > swell?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Michel
> >
>
> Now there's a question!! Given my experiences with the sea
> and waves, I
> think this might be one time I'd prefer a downwind landing!
> If you hit just
> right maybe you could surf to shore!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Also this part
Life Preservers and Flotation Devices
602.62 (1) No person shall conduct a take-off or a landing on water in an
aircraft or operate an aircraft over water beyond a point where the aircraft
could reach shore in the event of an engine failure, unless a life
preserver, individual flotation device or personal flotation device is
carried for each person on board.
(2) No person shall operate a land aeroplane, gyroplane, helicopter or
airship at more than 50 nautical miles from shore unless a life preserver is
carried for each person on board.
(3) No person shall operate a balloon at more than two nautical miles from
shore unless a life preserver, individual flotation device or personal
flotation device is carried for each person on board.
(4) For aircraft other than balloons, every life preserver, individual
flotation device and personal flotation device referred to in this section
shall be stowed in a position that is easily accessible to the person for
whose use it is provided, when that person is seated.
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: | Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Sorry for the second reply on this post. I thought it may be important to
mention that you don't get your worst swells (seas) during a storm but after
a storm. I have seen 30' seas on what was other wise glassy water with 0
wind. With seas like that you don't want to take the chance of ditching
half way up an arriving swell! It your burry faster than you can say Davey
Jones!
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave G.
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:06 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
>
> > Still one question remains: Ditch nose in the wind or
> parallel to the
> > swell?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Michel
> >
>
> Now there's a question!! Given my experiences with the sea
> and waves, I
> think this might be one time I'd prefer a downwind landing!
> If you hit just
> right maybe you could surf to shore!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Polytone over old polytone with carnauba. New question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dave and Diane <ddsyverson@comcast.net>
Jose,
only over polytone. Poly tone behaves a lot like lacquer - it is strictly a
solvent carried pigment/binder with no polymerization going on - just a
drying out of the solvent resulting in a finish that will dissolve in the
same solvent used in the original paint. Like lacquer, 15 or 20 years of use
results in polytone becoming much harder - that is essentially what the
rejuvenator is all about - something that will get into the old polytone.
Urethane (urethane Clear , aerothane, etc) of any kind will not allow the
solvent penetration, so the rejuvenator will not do anything to the urethane
products, except coat them - urethanes do polymerize after application so the
solvent won't do much.
It is kind of a catch22 - Polytone is easier to work with, but it is not all
that solvent resistant (solvents like gasoline, alcohol, MEK). Aerothane (and
other urethanes) are extremely solvent resistant after they cure, but they
are difficult to work with later.
Just a guess, based on my experience with auto paints (urethanes, enamels), if
you have urethane on top, it will be necessary to create enough "tooth" in
the surface by sanding (Usually water sanding with wet or dry sandpaper of
320-400 grit) The sanded urethane essentially becomes your base on which you
can apply a new layer of paint.
It sounds like you may have a non-standard finish. I am asssuming there is
something between the clear and the dacron. On thing a person has to watch
out for is getting too many layers over the fabric as this can result in the
paint cracking.
Good luck with your project,
Sincerely,
Dave S
St Paul, MN
Do Not Archive
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 7:15 pm, Jose M. Toro wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
>
> Dave:
>
> Would this work on dupont urethane clear paint applied
> over dacron?
>
> Jose
>
> --- Dave and Diane <ddsyverson@comcast.net> wrote:
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dave and Diane
> > <ddsyverson@comcast.net>
> >
> > Jose,
> >
> > I think I can figure out what you are looking for -
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: | Survival at sea. WAS: Rotax 912 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Here is the regs from Canada,
Common sense is stay within gliding distance from shore.
Dave
Life Rafts and Survival Equipment - Flights over Water
602.63 (1) No person shall operate over water a single-engined aeroplane, or
a multi-engined aeroplane that is unable to maintain flight with any engine
failed, at more than 100 nautical miles, or the distance that can be covered
in 30 minutes of flight at the cruising speed filed in the flight plan or
flight itinerary, whichever distance is the lesser, from a suitable
emergency landing site unless life rafts are carried on board and are
sufficient in total rated capacity to accommodate all of the persons on
board.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), no person shall operate over water a
multi-engined aeroplane that is able to maintain flight with any engine
failed at more than 200 nautical miles, or the distance that can be covered
in 60 minutes of flight at the cruising speed filed in the flight plan or
flight itinerary, whichever distance is the lesser, from a suitable
emergency landing site unless life rafts are carried on board and are
sufficient in total rated capacity to accommodate all of the persons on
board.
(3) A person may operate over water a transport category aircraft that is an
aeroplane, at up to 400 nautical miles, or the distance that can be covered
in 120 minutes of flight at the cruising speed filed in the flight plan or
flight itinerary, whichever distance is the lesser, from a suitable
emergency landing site without the life rafts referred to in subsection (2)
being carried on board.
(4) No person shall operate over water a single-engined helicopter, or a
multi-engined helicopter that is unable to maintain flight with any engine
failed, at more than 25 nautical miles, or the distance that can be covered
in 15 minutes of flight at the cruising speed filed in the flight plan or
flight itinerary, whichever distance is the lesser, from a suitable
emergency landing site unless life rafts are carried on board and are
sufficient in total rated capacity to accommodate all of the persons on
board.
(5) No person shall operate over water a multi-engined helicopter that is
able to maintain flight with any engine failed at more than 50 nautical
miles, or the distance that can be covered in 30 minutes of flight at the
cruising speed filed in the flight plan or flight itinerary, whichever
distance is the lesser, from a suitable emergency landing site unless life
rafts are carried on board and are sufficient in total rated capacity to
accommodate all of the persons on board.
(6) The life rafts referred to in this section shall be
(a) stowed so that they are easily accessible for use in the event of a
ditching;
(b) installed in conspicuously marked locations near an exit; and
(c) equipped with an attached survival kit, sufficient for the survival on
water of each person on board the aircraft, given the geographical area, the
season of the year and anticipated seasonal climatic variations, that
provides a means for
(i) providing shelter,
(ii) providing or purifying water, and
(iii) visually signalling distress.
(7) Where a helicopter is required to carry life rafts pursuant to
subsection (4) or (5), no person shall operate the helicopter over water
having a temperature of less than 10oC unless
(a) a helicopter passenger transportation suit system is provided for the
use of each person on board; and
(b) the pilot-in-command directs each person on board to wear the helicopter
passenger transportation suit system.
(8) Every person who has been directed to wear a helicopter passenger
transportation suit system pursuant to paragraph (7)(b) shall wear that suit
system.
602.64 to 602.69
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: removing aerothane |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff puls" <pulsair@mindspring.com>
If you are using MEK make sure you wear gloves and a respirator. That stuff
can be absorbed through the skin and kill ya. Jeff
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 4:30 PM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
>
> Thanks Ray, and also Jeff who replied offline. I'll try it with the old
> MEK (which by the way is the same mix of MEK, toluene and another that the
> loacl auto paint store sells) and a paint remover this weekend. I'm
> learning to dislike aerothane, if I had built new I would certainly go
> with polytone.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 4:35 PM
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "RAY Gignac" <kitfoxpilot@msn.com>
>>
>> This is how I removed aerothane for a tube repair! first you use any
>> hardware store paint stripper, brush it on but don't turn your back it
>> works fast. The paint stripper will soften up the aerothane so you can
>> scrape the aerothane off. next you will have to clean the bare fabric
>> then reglue new fabric on and paint. now make sure you use white paint
>> over the silver so that your yellow will blend good. I have photos of my
>> repair if you like.
>>
>> Ray
>>
>>
>>>From: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
>>>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>>Subject: Kitfox-List: removing aerothane
>>>Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:21:47 -0300
>>>
>>>I have a couple of areas where the fabric must be repaired after it was
>>>cut away to assess the structure underneath. In some cases it's just as
>>>easy to replace the whole area, but on some such as the tail area below
>>>the stabilizer I want to patch it. The Polyfiber manual says to sand off
>>>the aerothane, technique is probably important, anybody engaged in this
>>>activity?
>>>
>>>Here is a picture of the affected areas.
>>
>>
>>><< kitfoxwing012.jpg >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>> http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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: | First Flight. The Short and the Long. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
All,
Short Version:
The Red and White Kitfox flew for the first time this Wednesday morning at
0827 in Ramona, near San Diego. The flight was uneventful for everyone but
me, the pilot. I noted the following:
1. I'm going to need a trim system.
2. I was getting a lot of exhaust inside. I didn't have the firewall sealed
because of constantly removing the cowl so will do that tonight for
tomorrow's flight. I bought some CO detectors too. I'm also pursuing an
exhaust extension. Anyone know where I can get a cool slip joint for a 1.5"
OD tube?
3. I have the typical yaw stability points +/- one ball either side of
center. I have ribs in the vertical stabilizer, but they're very thin and
only on the tubes. It's no big deal, but if anyone has come up with a
no-drag way of eliminating it I'd be interested.
4. I get a discrete vibration out of the engine at some RPM's. I haven't
dynamically balanced the prop yet, as I'm waiting to get the pitch set
right. (I assume I set it so I'm at 6500 RPM flat out and fully leaned.
(582) I'm not sure what altitude to use.)
Long Version:
First flight should have been last week. Many of you have seen that I've
been poking around, looking for time in a tail-dragger K-IV. Well Lowell
kindly volunteered to sacrifice his Kitfox if I could get up to Cameron
Park. We had a date set for a couple of Monday's ago, but Lowell's last
minute insurance inquiry confirmed what I feared. You see I had contacted a
couple of K-IV owners in San Diego, and both had said that I had to be a
named insured on their aircraft policy. Neither of the San Diego owners
wanted to go that far, which I could perfectly understand.
Lowell, however, is exceptional. He offered to put me on his policy if I
would pay the difference. (Let's see, he's got about 800 hours in a Kitfox
IV. I've got 0, plus maybe 20 hours in a Decathlon. Ouch.) We sealed the
deal and he went through all the hassle of putting both me and his flight
instructor, Ken Couey, on his policy, so I could come up to Cameron Park
and fly for one hour. Why all the hassle? Because of my insurance. I got
quotes on $1M liability, (no hull,) from three companies:
1. AOPAIG wanted $767 annually. They required one hour of dual in the same
make/model, then 25 hours of solo.
2. EAA wanted $797 annually. They required five hours of dual in the same
make/model, then 5 hours solo.
3. AVEMCO wanted $576 annually. (I'll go with them next year.)
Unfortunately they wanted 10 hours of dual in something tail-draggerish. It
didn't have to be make/model.
I had only two hours of recent dual in a Citabria, and I really wanted some
time in a tail-dragger K-IV before I flew mine. Robert Harris had
graciously given me some time in his 0-200 K-V, even letting me scare the
crap out of both of us on a couple of landings. And Alan Nephew had let me
fly his K-IV, but it was a trike. I really wanted to know if I could land a
tail-dragger IV.
So it was off to Lowell's for my one hour's dual. I booked the Bonanza for
this last Monday, departing Ramona a half hour before sunrise. I had a
beautiful clear flight up to Westover, where I picked up Ken Couey. Ken
proved to be an affable companion, with an absolutely gorgeous GlasStar.
(It's for sale!)
Many of you have been to Lowell's, where he hosts his annual Kitfox
gathering. I couldn't go this year, and knowing Lowell's disappointment,
and his generosity, I felt I should make every effort to visit. Lowell's is
an interesting place. It's apparently the only community where you go
bopping down the road in your airplane, amongst the cars and bikes, and
pull up to the curb for a visit. When we showed up Lowell was waiting out
in front of his house, and we pulled the Bonanza around the corner to park
in the shade of a tree. Very surreal.
After a brief pre-flight Ken and I attempted entry. Unfortunately Ken
weighs 200, and I weigh 200, and we're both about 6'. We fit, but only by
emptying our pockets. From then on it was the battle of the knees, wherein
I tried to wrest control of the throttle from Ken's left knee, while he
tried to keep his feet off the rudder pedals so I could fly. We had a few
tense moments but I assured him of my heterosexuality and calmed his fears.
We flew on to Placerville, a beautiful airport on the side of a hill, where
I demonstrated my landing prowess. Actually I did pretty well, causing only
three sharp intakes of breath, one brief shout, yet not one expletive. (I
said he was affable.) And I was efficient, getting three or four landings
to every take-off!
Returning to Cameron Park Ken signed my logbook, and the three of us
celebrated over large glasses of ice water. (Did I tell you it was over
100F on the ground?) Ken and Lowell discussed plans for their up-coming
Idaho trip, regaling me with stories of crazy airfields. They even invited
me to come, knowing full well I'd be sweating my 40 hours down in San Diego.
After a brief tour of Lowell's Lancair project Ken and I climbed into the
Bonanza oven and sweated our way back to Westover. (I kept thinking Ken was
looking for traffic, but he was really just trying hard to not touch the
seat!) I returned to Ramona, running the thunderstorm gauntlet over the
Tehachepi, and began arrangements for first flight.
I wanted at least one kit builder for my ground crew, but everybody was
either at Oshkosh or working. I have a new friend whose hangar opposes,
who's finishing an RV-6. He really wanted to see me fly, as he's been
watching in awe as I break in my tires and brakes. (I try to see how fast I
can go without letting the wheels leave the ground. It's fun and exciting!)
He offered to play hooky so I booked the field for today, Wednesday. My
ground crew consisted then of my wife on camera, my father in charge of
take-off roll distance, my kids for distraction, and Ken on the radio,
doing the real work of keeping me honest. Ken also brought a couple of
builder buddies interested in the prospect of carnage.
I got to the airport at 7 and did a complete pre-flight. Everything was
looking perfect until the distant sounds of spooling turbines arrested my
heart. You see, Ramona's an air attack base, and San Diego's currently
burning. (We do that every now and then to flush the illegal aliens.) First
the spotter. ("That's OK, maybe they'll go out and see they're not needed.
Right.") Then the S-2's, then the Ag-wagons. It was turning into a real
party. I was about to cancel when Ken suggested calling the tower. I called
Ground and explained that I wanted to run an eensy-weensy first flight test
in the middle of cycling five fire bombers on 10 minute centers. To my
chagrin they said "Sure! No problem!"
At 0830 I lined up, took two deep breaths, and while fighting for control
of my bladder pushed the throttle all the way forward. The 582 responded
magnificently and in 540' (according to my father's careful measurements,)
was airborne. I did some quick stability checks, and climbed out at 65
while watching temps. When the water got to 175 I pushed it over to 75,
which held the temperature steady. I climbed to 2000 AGL, forgetting the
checklist, the test plan, and damn near everything else in my euphoria.
Shaking my head to clear out the joy, (and the exhaust fumes,) I ran
through my stability checks, noting that my Kitfox flies sideways quite
nicely. Just give it a little rudder and it settles into a nice, stable,
one ball yaw angle flying straight ahead. So I then amused myself for a few
minutes, kicking the tail back and forth while giggling with delight.
Enough of that! I did some slow flight. I did some turns. I did some
practice approaches. All boring. After about 40 minutes in the air I
decided it was now or never; I'd have to land sooner or later, and luck was
definitely going my way.
I had planned a long final, with a nice, stable approach. Of course I was
silly high, and being the good, conservative, conscientious test pilot that
I am, I slammed the plane into a wicked slip, (No! Go around, you idiot!)
dropped about 500', lining up right at the numbers. I then proceeded to
make the best touchdown I have ever, and will ever, in my entire life, and
the one after, make. It was better than grease. It was sublime.
Ground sent me to the ground crew to celebrate. As it was morning we kept
our libations simple. There was much back-slapping and hand shaking and
"damn, that was great" and pictures of everybody in every permutation, all
with the aircraft, and then we went home.
Now it seems a dream. I'll do it again tomorrow and it will get more real
as the days wear on. I've also got some serious mods to do so that will cut
into my flying. I've got a 40 hour test plan. I guess I'd better get to it.
PS Thanks, everyone, for all the help. And for those of you still building:
it's worth it. Really.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: | oil injection filter |
I'm about to change my brand of oil soon, and advice would have me
change the filter and drain all of the old oil. Is there a certain type
of oil filter required, or will any snow mobile or gas line filter due?
(582)
Thanks,
Larry
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | First Flight. The Short and the Long. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Guy,
Congratulations! And thanks for the great write up!
Blue Skies,
Randy
Do not archive
.
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Guy Buchanan
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:50 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
All,
Short Version:
The Red and White Kitfox flew for the first time this Wednesday morning at
0827 in Ramona, near San Diego. The flight was uneventful for everyone but
me, the pilot. I noted the following:
1. I'm going to need a trim system.
2. I was getting a lot of exhaust inside. I didn't have the firewall sealed
because of constantly removing the cowl so will do that tonight for
tomorrow's flight. I bought some CO detectors too. I'm also pursuing an
exhaust extension. Anyone know where I can get a cool slip joint for a 1.5"
OD tube?
3. I have the typical yaw stability points +/- one ball either side of
center. I have ribs in the vertical stabilizer, but they're very thin and
only on the tubes. It's no big deal, but if anyone has come up with a
no-drag way of eliminating it I'd be interested.
4. I get a discrete vibration out of the engine at some RPM's. I haven't
dynamically balanced the prop yet, as I'm waiting to get the pitch set
right. (I assume I set it so I'm at 6500 RPM flat out and fully leaned.
(582) I'm not sure what altitude to use.)
Long Version:
First flight should have been last week. Many of you have seen that I've
been poking around, looking for time in a tail-dragger K-IV. Well Lowell
kindly volunteered to sacrifice his Kitfox if I could get up to Cameron
Park. We had a date set for a couple of Monday's ago, but Lowell's last
minute insurance inquiry confirmed what I feared. You see I had contacted a
couple of K-IV owners in San Diego, and both had said that I had to be a
named insured on their aircraft policy. Neither of the San Diego owners
wanted to go that far, which I could perfectly understand.
Lowell, however, is exceptional. He offered to put me on his policy if I
would pay the difference. (Let's see, he's got about 800 hours in a Kitfox
IV. I've got 0, plus maybe 20 hours in a Decathlon. Ouch.) We sealed the
deal and he went through all the hassle of putting both me and his flight
instructor, Ken Couey, on his policy, so I could come up to Cameron Park
and fly for one hour. Why all the hassle? Because of my insurance. I got
quotes on $1M liability, (no hull,) from three companies:
1. AOPAIG wanted $767 annually. They required one hour of dual in the same
make/model, then 25 hours of solo.
2. EAA wanted $797 annually. They required five hours of dual in the same
make/model, then 5 hours solo.
3. AVEMCO wanted $576 annually. (I'll go with them next year.)
Unfortunately they wanted 10 hours of dual in something tail-draggerish. It
didn't have to be make/model.
I had only two hours of recent dual in a Citabria, and I really wanted some
time in a tail-dragger K-IV before I flew mine. Robert Harris had
graciously given me some time in his 0-200 K-V, even letting me scare the
crap out of both of us on a couple of landings. And Alan Nephew had let me
fly his K-IV, but it was a trike. I really wanted to know if I could land a
tail-dragger IV.
So it was off to Lowell's for my one hour's dual. I booked the Bonanza for
this last Monday, departing Ramona a half hour before sunrise. I had a
beautiful clear flight up to Westover, where I picked up Ken Couey. Ken
proved to be an affable companion, with an absolutely gorgeous GlasStar.
(It's for sale!)
Many of you have been to Lowell's, where he hosts his annual Kitfox
gathering. I couldn't go this year, and knowing Lowell's disappointment,
and his generosity, I felt I should make every effort to visit. Lowell's is
an interesting place. It's apparently the only community where you go
bopping down the road in your airplane, amongst the cars and bikes, and
pull up to the curb for a visit. When we showed up Lowell was waiting out
in front of his house, and we pulled the Bonanza around the corner to park
in the shade of a tree. Very surreal.
After a brief pre-flight Ken and I attempted entry. Unfortunately Ken
weighs 200, and I weigh 200, and we're both about 6'. We fit, but only by
emptying our pockets. From then on it was the battle of the knees, wherein
I tried to wrest control of the throttle from Ken's left knee, while he
tried to keep his feet off the rudder pedals so I could fly. We had a few
tense moments but I assured him of my heterosexuality and calmed his fears.
We flew on to Placerville, a beautiful airport on the side of a hill, where
I demonstrated my landing prowess. Actually I did pretty well, causing only
three sharp intakes of breath, one brief shout, yet not one expletive. (I
said he was affable.) And I was efficient, getting three or four landings
to every take-off!
Returning to Cameron Park Ken signed my logbook, and the three of us
celebrated over large glasses of ice water. (Did I tell you it was over
100F on the ground?) Ken and Lowell discussed plans for their up-coming
Idaho trip, regaling me with stories of crazy airfields. They even invited
me to come, knowing full well I'd be sweating my 40 hours down in San Diego.
After a brief tour of Lowell's Lancair project Ken and I climbed into the
Bonanza oven and sweated our way back to Westover. (I kept thinking Ken was
looking for traffic, but he was really just trying hard to not touch the
seat!) I returned to Ramona, running the thunderstorm gauntlet over the
Tehachepi, and began arrangements for first flight.
I wanted at least one kit builder for my ground crew, but everybody was
either at Oshkosh or working. I have a new friend whose hangar opposes,
who's finishing an RV-6. He really wanted to see me fly, as he's been
watching in awe as I break in my tires and brakes. (I try to see how fast I
can go without letting the wheels leave the ground. It's fun and exciting!)
He offered to play hooky so I booked the field for today, Wednesday. My
ground crew consisted then of my wife on camera, my father in charge of
take-off roll distance, my kids for distraction, and Ken on the radio,
doing the real work of keeping me honest. Ken also brought a couple of
builder buddies interested in the prospect of carnage.
I got to the airport at 7 and did a complete pre-flight. Everything was
looking perfect until the distant sounds of spooling turbines arrested my
heart. You see, Ramona's an air attack base, and San Diego's currently
burning. (We do that every now and then to flush the illegal aliens.) First
the spotter. ("That's OK, maybe they'll go out and see they're not needed.
Right.") Then the S-2's, then the Ag-wagons. It was turning into a real
party. I was about to cancel when Ken suggested calling the tower. I called
Ground and explained that I wanted to run an eensy-weensy first flight test
in the middle of cycling five fire bombers on 10 minute centers. To my
chagrin they said "Sure! No problem!"
At 0830 I lined up, took two deep breaths, and while fighting for control
of my bladder pushed the throttle all the way forward. The 582 responded
magnificently and in 540' (according to my father's careful measurements,)
was airborne. I did some quick stability checks, and climbed out at 65
while watching temps. When the water got to 175 I pushed it over to 75,
which held the temperature steady. I climbed to 2000 AGL, forgetting the
checklist, the test plan, and damn near everything else in my euphoria.
Shaking my head to clear out the joy, (and the exhaust fumes,) I ran
through my stability checks, noting that my Kitfox flies sideways quite
nicely. Just give it a little rudder and it settles into a nice, stable,
one ball yaw angle flying straight ahead. So I then amused myself for a few
minutes, kicking the tail back and forth while giggling with delight.
Enough of that! I did some slow flight. I did some turns. I did some
practice approaches. All boring. After about 40 minutes in the air I
decided it was now or never; I'd have to land sooner or later, and luck was
definitely going my way.
I had planned a long final, with a nice, stable approach. Of course I was
silly high, and being the good, conservative, conscientious test pilot that
I am, I slammed the plane into a wicked slip, (No! Go around, you idiot!)
dropped about 500', lining up right at the numbers. I then proceeded to
make the best touchdown I have ever, and will ever, in my entire life, and
the one after, make. It was better than grease. It was sublime.
Ground sent me to the ground crew to celebrate. As it was morning we kept
our libations simple. There was much back-slapping and hand shaking and
"damn, that was great" and pictures of everybody in every permutation, all
with the aircraft, and then we went home.
Now it seems a dream. I'll do it again tomorrow and it will get more real
as the days wear on. I've also got some serious mods to do so that will cut
into my flying. I've got a 40 hour test plan. I guess I'd better get to it.
PS Thanks, everyone, for all the help. And for those of you still building:
it's worth it. Really.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: removing aerothane |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Jeff, respectfully I would suggest that your comments could be classified
as an urban legend. See:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/hlthef/methylet.html
For the EPA scoop.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:35 PM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff puls" <pulsair@mindspring.com>
>
> If you are using MEK make sure you wear gloves and a respirator. That
> stuff can be absorbed through the skin and kill ya. Jeff
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 4:30 PM
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
>>
>> Thanks Ray, and also Jeff who replied offline. I'll try it with the old
>> MEK (which by the way is the same mix of MEK, toluene and another that
>> the loacl auto paint store sells) and a paint remover this weekend. I'm
>> learning to dislike aerothane, if I had built new I would certainly go
>> with polytone.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 4:35 PM
>>
>>
>>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "RAY Gignac" <kitfoxpilot@msn.com>
>>>
>>> This is how I removed aerothane for a tube repair! first you use any
>>> hardware store paint stripper, brush it on but don't turn your back it
>>> works fast. The paint stripper will soften up the aerothane so you can
>>> scrape the aerothane off. next you will have to clean the bare fabric
>>> then reglue new fabric on and paint. now make sure you use white paint
>>> over the silver so that your yellow will blend good. I have photos of
>>> my repair if you like.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
>>>>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>>>Subject: Kitfox-List: removing aerothane
>>>>Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:21:47 -0300
>>>>
>>>>I have a couple of areas where the fabric must be repaired after it was
>>>>cut away to assess the structure underneath. In some cases it's just as
>>>>easy to replace the whole area, but on some such as the tail area below
>>>>the stabilizer I want to patch it. The Polyfiber manual says to sand off
>>>>the aerothane, technique is probably important, anybody engaged in this
>>>>activity?
>>>>
>>>>Here is a picture of the affected areas.
>>>
>>>
>>>><< kitfoxwing012.jpg >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>>> http://wiki.matronics.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>> http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: First Flight. The Short and the Long. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "QSS" <msm@byterocky.net>
Congratulations Guy, may you have many enjoyable hours of flying an fun in
your fox. Well done.
Regards
Graeme ----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:49 AM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
>
> All,
>
> Short Version:
>
> The Red and White Kitfox flew for the first time this Wednesday morning at
> 0827 in Ramona, near San Diego. The flight was uneventful for everyone but
> me, the pilot. I noted the following:
>
> 1. I'm going to need a trim system.
> 2. I was getting a lot of exhaust inside. I didn't have the firewall
> sealed because of constantly removing the cowl so will do that tonight for
> tomorrow's flight. I bought some CO detectors too. I'm also pursuing an
> exhaust extension. Anyone know where I can get a cool slip joint for a
> 1.5" OD tube?
> 3. I have the typical yaw stability points +/- one ball either side of
> center. I have ribs in the vertical stabilizer, but they're very thin and
> only on the tubes. It's no big deal, but if anyone has come up with a
> no-drag way of eliminating it I'd be interested.
> 4. I get a discrete vibration out of the engine at some RPM's. I haven't
> dynamically balanced the prop yet, as I'm waiting to get the pitch set
> right. (I assume I set it so I'm at 6500 RPM flat out and fully leaned.
> (582) I'm not sure what altitude to use.)
>
> Long Version:
>
> First flight should have been last week. Many of you have seen that I've
> been poking around, looking for time in a tail-dragger K-IV. Well Lowell
> kindly volunteered to sacrifice his Kitfox if I could get up to Cameron
> Park. We had a date set for a couple of Monday's ago, but Lowell's last
> minute insurance inquiry confirmed what I feared. You see I had contacted
> a couple of K-IV owners in San Diego, and both had said that I had to be a
> named insured on their aircraft policy. Neither of the San Diego owners
> wanted to go that far, which I could perfectly understand.
>
> Lowell, however, is exceptional. He offered to put me on his policy if I
> would pay the difference. (Let's see, he's got about 800 hours in a Kitfox
> IV. I've got 0, plus maybe 20 hours in a Decathlon. Ouch.) We sealed the
> deal and he went through all the hassle of putting both me and his flight
> instructor, Ken Couey, on his policy, so I could come up to Cameron Park
> and fly for one hour. Why all the hassle? Because of my insurance. I got
> quotes on $1M liability, (no hull,) from three companies:
>
> 1. AOPAIG wanted $767 annually. They required one hour of dual in the same
> make/model, then 25 hours of solo.
>
> 2. EAA wanted $797 annually. They required five hours of dual in the same
> make/model, then 5 hours solo.
>
> 3. AVEMCO wanted $576 annually. (I'll go with them next year.)
> Unfortunately they wanted 10 hours of dual in something tail-draggerish.
> It didn't have to be make/model.
>
> I had only two hours of recent dual in a Citabria, and I really wanted
> some time in a tail-dragger K-IV before I flew mine. Robert Harris had
> graciously given me some time in his 0-200 K-V, even letting me scare the
> crap out of both of us on a couple of landings. And Alan Nephew had let me
> fly his K-IV, but it was a trike. I really wanted to know if I could land
> a tail-dragger IV.
>
> So it was off to Lowell's for my one hour's dual. I booked the Bonanza for
> this last Monday, departing Ramona a half hour before sunrise. I had a
> beautiful clear flight up to Westover, where I picked up Ken Couey. Ken
> proved to be an affable companion, with an absolutely gorgeous GlasStar.
> (It's for sale!)
>
> Many of you have been to Lowell's, where he hosts his annual Kitfox
> gathering. I couldn't go this year, and knowing Lowell's disappointment,
> and his generosity, I felt I should make every effort to visit. Lowell's
> is an interesting place. It's apparently the only community where you go
> bopping down the road in your airplane, amongst the cars and bikes, and
> pull up to the curb for a visit. When we showed up Lowell was waiting out
> in front of his house, and we pulled the Bonanza around the corner to park
> in the shade of a tree. Very surreal.
>
> After a brief pre-flight Ken and I attempted entry. Unfortunately Ken
> weighs 200, and I weigh 200, and we're both about 6'. We fit, but only by
> emptying our pockets. From then on it was the battle of the knees, wherein
> I tried to wrest control of the throttle from Ken's left knee, while he
> tried to keep his feet off the rudder pedals so I could fly. We had a few
> tense moments but I assured him of my heterosexuality and calmed his
> fears. We flew on to Placerville, a beautiful airport on the side of a
> hill, where I demonstrated my landing prowess. Actually I did pretty well,
> causing only three sharp intakes of breath, one brief shout, yet not one
> expletive. (I said he was affable.) And I was efficient, getting three or
> four landings to every take-off!
>
> Returning to Cameron Park Ken signed my logbook, and the three of us
> celebrated over large glasses of ice water. (Did I tell you it was over
> 100F on the ground?) Ken and Lowell discussed plans for their up-coming
> Idaho trip, regaling me with stories of crazy airfields. They even invited
> me to come, knowing full well I'd be sweating my 40 hours down in San
> Diego.
>
> After a brief tour of Lowell's Lancair project Ken and I climbed into the
> Bonanza oven and sweated our way back to Westover. (I kept thinking Ken
> was looking for traffic, but he was really just trying hard to not touch
> the seat!) I returned to Ramona, running the thunderstorm gauntlet over
> the Tehachepi, and began arrangements for first flight.
>
> I wanted at least one kit builder for my ground crew, but everybody was
> either at Oshkosh or working. I have a new friend whose hangar opposes,
> who's finishing an RV-6. He really wanted to see me fly, as he's been
> watching in awe as I break in my tires and brakes. (I try to see how fast
> I can go without letting the wheels leave the ground. It's fun and
> exciting!) He offered to play hooky so I booked the field for today,
> Wednesday. My ground crew consisted then of my wife on camera, my father
> in charge of take-off roll distance, my kids for distraction, and Ken on
> the radio, doing the real work of keeping me honest. Ken also brought a
> couple of builder buddies interested in the prospect of carnage.
>
> I got to the airport at 7 and did a complete pre-flight. Everything was
> looking perfect until the distant sounds of spooling turbines arrested my
> heart. You see, Ramona's an air attack base, and San Diego's currently
> burning. (We do that every now and then to flush the illegal aliens.)
> First the spotter. ("That's OK, maybe they'll go out and see they're not
> needed. Right.") Then the S-2's, then the Ag-wagons. It was turning into a
> real party. I was about to cancel when Ken suggested calling the tower. I
> called Ground and explained that I wanted to run an eensy-weensy first
> flight test in the middle of cycling five fire bombers on 10 minute
> centers. To my chagrin they said "Sure! No problem!"
>
> At 0830 I lined up, took two deep breaths, and while fighting for control
> of my bladder pushed the throttle all the way forward. The 582 responded
> magnificently and in 540' (according to my father's careful measurements,)
> was airborne. I did some quick stability checks, and climbed out at 65
> while watching temps. When the water got to 175 I pushed it over to 75,
> which held the temperature steady. I climbed to 2000 AGL, forgetting the
> checklist, the test plan, and damn near everything else in my euphoria.
> Shaking my head to clear out the joy, (and the exhaust fumes,) I ran
> through my stability checks, noting that my Kitfox flies sideways quite
> nicely. Just give it a little rudder and it settles into a nice, stable,
> one ball yaw angle flying straight ahead. So I then amused myself for a
> few minutes, kicking the tail back and forth while giggling with delight.
> Enough of that! I did some slow flight. I did some turns. I did some
> practice approaches. All boring. After about 40 minutes in the air I
> decided it was now or never; I'd have to land sooner or later, and luck
> was definitely going my way.
>
> I had planned a long final, with a nice, stable approach. Of course I was
> silly high, and being the good, conservative, conscientious test pilot
> that I am, I slammed the plane into a wicked slip, (No! Go around, you
> idiot!) dropped about 500', lining up right at the numbers. I then
> proceeded to make the best touchdown I have ever, and will ever, in my
> entire life, and the one after, make. It was better than grease. It was
> sublime.
>
> Ground sent me to the ground crew to celebrate. As it was morning we kept
> our libations simple. There was much back-slapping and hand shaking and
> "damn, that was great" and pictures of everybody in every permutation, all
> with the aircraft, and then we went home.
>
> Now it seems a dream. I'll do it again tomorrow and it will get more real
> as the days wear on. I've also got some serious mods to do so that will
> cut into my flying. I've got a 40 hour test plan. I guess I'd better get
> to it.
>
> PS Thanks, everyone, for all the help. And for those of you still
> building: it's worth it. Really.
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% 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 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: First Flight. The Short and the Long. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Guy,
I enjoyed the day. Thanks for the report. It looks like you are on your
way. See you next year.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:49 PM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
>
> All,
>
> Short Version:
>
> The Red and White Kitfox flew for the first time this Wednesday morning at
> 0827 in Ramona, near San Diego. The flight was uneventful for everyone but
> me, the pilot. I noted the following:
>
> 1. I'm going to need a trim system.
> 2. I was getting a lot of exhaust inside. I didn't have the firewall
> sealed because of constantly removing the cowl so will do that tonight for
> tomorrow's flight. I bought some CO detectors too. I'm also pursuing an
> exhaust extension. Anyone know where I can get a cool slip joint for a
> 1.5" OD tube?
> 3. I have the typical yaw stability points +/- one ball either side of
> center. I have ribs in the vertical stabilizer, but they're very thin and
> only on the tubes. It's no big deal, but if anyone has come up with a
> no-drag way of eliminating it I'd be interested.
> 4. I get a discrete vibration out of the engine at some RPM's. I haven't
> dynamically balanced the prop yet, as I'm waiting to get the pitch set
> right. (I assume I set it so I'm at 6500 RPM flat out and fully leaned.
> (582) I'm not sure what altitude to use.)
>
> Long Version:
>
> First flight should have been last week. Many of you have seen that I've
> been poking around, looking for time in a tail-dragger K-IV. Well Lowell
> kindly volunteered to sacrifice his Kitfox if I could get up to Cameron
> Park. We had a date set for a couple of Monday's ago, but Lowell's last
> minute insurance inquiry confirmed what I feared. You see I had contacted
> a couple of K-IV owners in San Diego, and both had said that I had to be a
> named insured on their aircraft policy. Neither of the San Diego owners
> wanted to go that far, which I could perfectly understand.
>
> Lowell, however, is exceptional. He offered to put me on his policy if I
> would pay the difference. (Let's see, he's got about 800 hours in a Kitfox
> IV. I've got 0, plus maybe 20 hours in a Decathlon. Ouch.) We sealed the
> deal and he went through all the hassle of putting both me and his flight
> instructor, Ken Couey, on his policy, so I could come up to Cameron Park
> and fly for one hour. Why all the hassle? Because of my insurance. I got
> quotes on $1M liability, (no hull,) from three companies:
>
> 1. AOPAIG wanted $767 annually. They required one hour of dual in the same
> make/model, then 25 hours of solo.
>
> 2. EAA wanted $797 annually. They required five hours of dual in the same
> make/model, then 5 hours solo.
>
> 3. AVEMCO wanted $576 annually. (I'll go with them next year.)
> Unfortunately they wanted 10 hours of dual in something tail-draggerish.
> It didn't have to be make/model.
>
> I had only two hours of recent dual in a Citabria, and I really wanted
> some time in a tail-dragger K-IV before I flew mine. Robert Harris had
> graciously given me some time in his 0-200 K-V, even letting me scare the
> crap out of both of us on a couple of landings. And Alan Nephew had let me
> fly his K-IV, but it was a trike. I really wanted to know if I could land
> a tail-dragger IV.
>
> So it was off to Lowell's for my one hour's dual. I booked the Bonanza for
> this last Monday, departing Ramona a half hour before sunrise. I had a
> beautiful clear flight up to Westover, where I picked up Ken Couey. Ken
> proved to be an affable companion, with an absolutely gorgeous GlasStar.
> (It's for sale!)
>
> Many of you have been to Lowell's, where he hosts his annual Kitfox
> gathering. I couldn't go this year, and knowing Lowell's disappointment,
> and his generosity, I felt I should make every effort to visit. Lowell's
> is an interesting place. It's apparently the only community where you go
> bopping down the road in your airplane, amongst the cars and bikes, and
> pull up to the curb for a visit. When we showed up Lowell was waiting out
> in front of his house, and we pulled the Bonanza around the corner to park
> in the shade of a tree. Very surreal.
>
> After a brief pre-flight Ken and I attempted entry. Unfortunately Ken
> weighs 200, and I weigh 200, and we're both about 6'. We fit, but only by
> emptying our pockets. From then on it was the battle of the knees, wherein
> I tried to wrest control of the throttle from Ken's left knee, while he
> tried to keep his feet off the rudder pedals so I could fly. We had a few
> tense moments but I assured him of my heterosexuality and calmed his
> fears. We flew on to Placerville, a beautiful airport on the side of a
> hill, where I demonstrated my landing prowess. Actually I did pretty well,
> causing only three sharp intakes of breath, one brief shout, yet not one
> expletive. (I said he was affable.) And I was efficient, getting three or
> four landings to every take-off!
>
> Returning to Cameron Park Ken signed my logbook, and the three of us
> celebrated over large glasses of ice water. (Did I tell you it was over
> 100F on the ground?) Ken and Lowell discussed plans for their up-coming
> Idaho trip, regaling me with stories of crazy airfields. They even invited
> me to come, knowing full well I'd be sweating my 40 hours down in San
> Diego.
>
> After a brief tour of Lowell's Lancair project Ken and I climbed into the
> Bonanza oven and sweated our way back to Westover. (I kept thinking Ken
> was looking for traffic, but he was really just trying hard to not touch
> the seat!) I returned to Ramona, running the thunderstorm gauntlet over
> the Tehachepi, and began arrangements for first flight.
>
> I wanted at least one kit builder for my ground crew, but everybody was
> either at Oshkosh or working. I have a new friend whose hangar opposes,
> who's finishing an RV-6. He really wanted to see me fly, as he's been
> watching in awe as I break in my tires and brakes. (I try to see how fast
> I can go without letting the wheels leave the ground. It's fun and
> exciting!) He offered to play hooky so I booked the field for today,
> Wednesday. My ground crew consisted then of my wife on camera, my father
> in charge of take-off roll distance, my kids for distraction, and Ken on
> the radio, doing the real work of keeping me honest. Ken also brought a
> couple of builder buddies interested in the prospect of carnage.
>
> I got to the airport at 7 and did a complete pre-flight. Everything was
> looking perfect until the distant sounds of spooling turbines arrested my
> heart. You see, Ramona's an air attack base, and San Diego's currently
> burning. (We do that every now and then to flush the illegal aliens.)
> First the spotter. ("That's OK, maybe they'll go out and see they're not
> needed. Right.") Then the S-2's, then the Ag-wagons. It was turning into a
> real party. I was about to cancel when Ken suggested calling the tower. I
> called Ground and explained that I wanted to run an eensy-weensy first
> flight test in the middle of cycling five fire bombers on 10 minute
> centers. To my chagrin they said "Sure! No problem!"
>
> At 0830 I lined up, took two deep breaths, and while fighting for control
> of my bladder pushed the throttle all the way forward. The 582 responded
> magnificently and in 540' (according to my father's careful measurements,)
> was airborne. I did some quick stability checks, and climbed out at 65
> while watching temps. When the water got to 175 I pushed it over to 75,
> which held the temperature steady. I climbed to 2000 AGL, forgetting the
> checklist, the test plan, and damn near everything else in my euphoria.
> Shaking my head to clear out the joy, (and the exhaust fumes,) I ran
> through my stability checks, noting that my Kitfox flies sideways quite
> nicely. Just give it a little rudder and it settles into a nice, stable,
> one ball yaw angle flying straight ahead. So I then amused myself for a
> few minutes, kicking the tail back and forth while giggling with delight.
> Enough of that! I did some slow flight. I did some turns. I did some
> practice approaches. All boring. After about 40 minutes in the air I
> decided it was now or never; I'd have to land sooner or later, and luck
> was definitely going my way.
>
> I had planned a long final, with a nice, stable approach. Of course I was
> silly high, and being the good, conservative, conscientious test pilot
> that I am, I slammed the plane into a wicked slip, (No! Go around, you
> idiot!) dropped about 500', lining up right at the numbers. I then
> proceeded to make the best touchdown I have ever, and will ever, in my
> entire life, and the one after, make. It was better than grease. It was
> sublime.
>
> Ground sent me to the ground crew to celebrate. As it was morning we kept
> our libations simple. There was much back-slapping and hand shaking and
> "damn, that was great" and pictures of everybody in every permutation, all
> with the aircraft, and then we went home.
>
> Now it seems a dream. I'll do it again tomorrow and it will get more real
> as the days wear on. I've also got some serious mods to do so that will
> cut into my flying. I've got a 40 hour test plan. I guess I'd better get
> to it.
>
> PS Thanks, everyone, for all the help. And for those of you still
> building: it's worth it. Really.
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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: First Flight. The Short and the Long. |
Awright Guy !!!! Congrats!
do not archive
Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan
All,
Short Version:
The Red and White Kitfox flew for the first time this Wednesday morning at
0827 in Ramona, near San Diego. The flight was uneventful for everyone but
me, the pilot. I noted the following:
1. I'm going to need a trim system.
2. I was getting a lot of exhaust inside. I didn't have the firewall sealed
because of constantly removing the cowl so will do that tonight for
tomorrow's flight. I bought some CO detectors too. I'm also pursuing an
exhaust extension. Anyone know where I can get a cool slip joint for a 1.5"
OD tube?
3. I have the typical yaw stability points +/- one ball either side of
center. I have ribs in the vertical stabilizer, but they're very thin and
only on the tubes. It's no big deal, but if anyone has come up with a
no-drag way of eliminating it I'd be interested.
4. I get a discrete vibration out of the engine at some RPM's. I haven't
dynamically balanced the prop yet, as I'm waiting to get the pitch set
right. (I assume I set it so I'm at 6500 RPM flat out and fully leaned.
(582) I'm not sure what altitude to use.)
Long Version:
First flight should have been last week. Many of you have seen that I've
been poking around, looking for time in a tail-dragger K-IV. Well Lowell
kindly volunteered to sacrifice his Kitfox if I could get up to Cameron
Park. We had a date set for a couple of Monday's ago, but Lowell's last
minute insurance inquiry confirmed what I feared. You see I had contacted a
couple of K-IV owners in San Diego, and both had said that I had to be a
named insured on their aircraft policy. Neither of the San Diego owners
wanted to go that far, which I could perfectly understand.
Lowell, however, is exceptional. He offered to put me on his policy if I
would pay the difference. (Let's see, he's got about 800 hours in a Kitfox
IV. I've got 0, plus maybe 20 hours in a Decathlon. Ouch.) We sealed the
deal and he went through all the hassle of putting both me and his flight
instructor, Ken Couey, on his policy, so I could come up to Cameron Park
and fly for one hour. Why all the hassle? Because of my insurance. I got
quotes on $1M liability, (no hull,) from three companies:
1. AOPAIG wanted $767 annually. They required one hour of dual in the same
make/model, then 25 hours of solo.
2. EAA wanted $797 annually. They required five hours of dual in the same
make/model, then 5 hours solo.
3. AVEMCO wanted $576 annually. (I'll go with them next year.)
Unfortunately they wanted 10 hours of dual in something tail-draggerish. It
didn't have to be make/model.
I had only two hours of recent dual in a Citabria, and I really wanted some
time in a tail-dragger K-IV before I flew mine. Robert Harris had
graciously given me some time in his 0-200 K-V, even letting me scare the
crap out of both of us on a couple of landings. And Alan Nephew had let me
fly his K-IV, but it was a trike. I really wanted to know if I could land a
tail-dragger IV.
So it was off to Lowell's for my one hour's dual. I booked the Bonanza for
this last Monday, departing Ramona a half hour before sunrise. I had a
beautiful clear flight up to Westover, where I picked up Ken Couey. Ken
proved to be an affable companion, with an absolutely gorgeous GlasStar.
(It's for sale!)
Many of you have been to Lowell's, where he hosts his annual Kitfox
gathering. I couldn't go this year, and knowing Lowell's disappointment,
and his generosity, I felt I should make every effort to visit. Lowell's is
an interesting place. It's apparently the only community where you go
bopping down the road in your airplane, amongst the cars and bikes, and
pull up to the curb for a visit. When we showed up Lowell was waiting out
in front of his house, and we pulled the Bonanza around the corner to park
in the shade of a tree. Very surreal.
After a brief pre-flight Ken and I attempted entry. Unfortunately Ken
weighs 200, and I weigh 200, and we're both about 6'. We fit, but only by
emptying our pockets. From then on it was the battle of the knees, wherein
I tried to wrest control of the throttle from Ken's left knee, while he
tried to keep his feet off the rudder pedals so I could fly. We had a few
tense moments but I assured him of my heterosexuality and calmed his fears.
We flew on to Placerville, a beautiful airport on the side of a hill, where
I demonstrated my landing prowess. Actually I did pretty well, causing only
three sharp intakes of breath, one brief shout, yet not one expletive. (I
said he was affable.) And I was efficient, getting three or four landings
to every take-off!
Returning to Cameron Park Ken signed my logbook, and the three of us
celebrated over large glasses of ice water. (Did I tell you it was over
100F on the ground?) Ken and Lowell discussed plans for their up-coming
Idaho trip, regaling me with stories of crazy airfields. They even invited
me to come, knowing full well I'd be sweating my 40 hours down in San Diego.
After a brief tour of Lowell's Lancair project Ken and I climbed into the
Bonanza oven and sweated our way back to Westover. (I kept thinking Ken was
looking for traffic, but he was really just trying hard to not touch the
seat!) I returned to Ramona, running the thunderstorm gauntlet over the
Tehachepi, and began arrangements for first flight.
I wanted at least one kit builder for my ground crew, but everybody was
either at Oshkosh or working. I have a new friend whose hangar opposes,
who's finishing an RV-6. He really wanted to see me fly, as he's been
watching in awe as I break in my tires and brakes. (I try to see how fast I
can go without letting the wheels leave the ground. It's fun and exciting!)
He offered to play hooky so I booked the field for today, Wednesday. My
ground crew consisted then of my wife on camera, my father in charge of
take-off roll distance, my kids for distraction, and Ken on the radio,
doing the real work of keeping me honest. Ken also brought a couple of
builder buddies interested in the prospect of carnage.
I got to the airport at 7 and did a complete pre-flight. Everything was
looking perfect until the distant sounds of spooling turbines arrested my
heart. You see, Ramona's an air attack base, and San Diego's currently
burning. (We do that every now and then to flush the illegal aliens.) First
the spotter. ("That's OK, maybe they'll go out and see they're not needed.
Right.") Then the S-2's, then the Ag-wagons. It was turning into a real
party. I was about to cancel when Ken suggested calling the tower. I called
Ground and explained that I wanted to run an eensy-weensy first flight test
in the middle of cycling five fire bombers on 10 minute centers. To my
chagrin they said "Sure! No problem!"
At 0830 I lined up, took two deep breaths, and while fighting for control
of my bladder pushed the throttle all the way forward. The 582 responded
magnificently and in 540' (according to my father's careful measurements,)
was airborne. I did some quick stability checks, and climbed out at 65
while watching temps. When the water got to 175 I pushed it over to 75,
which held the temperature steady. I climbed to 2000 AGL, forgetting the
checklist, the test plan, and damn near everything else in my euphoria.
Shaking my head to clear out the joy, (and the exhaust fumes,) I ran
through my stability checks, noting that my Kitfox flies sideways quite
nicely. Just give it a little rudder and it settles into a nice, stable,
one ball yaw angle flying straight ahead. So I then amused myself for a few
minutes, kicking the tail back and forth while giggling with delight.
Enough of that! I did some slow flight. I did some turns. I did some
practice approaches. All boring. After about 40 minutes in the air I
decided it was now or never; I'd have to land sooner or later, and luck was
definitely going my way.
I had planned a long final, with a nice, stable approach. Of course I was
silly high, and being the good, conservative, conscientious test pilot that
I am, I slammed the plane into a wicked slip, (No! Go around, you idiot!)
dropped about 500', lining up right at the numbers. I then proceeded to
make the best touchdown I have ever, and will ever, in my entire life, and
the one after, make. It was better than grease. It was sublime.
Ground sent me to the ground crew to celebrate. As it was morning we kept
our libations simple. There was much back-slapping and hand shaking and
"damn, that was great" and pictures of everybody in every permutation, all
with the aircraft, and then we went home.
Now it seems a dream. I'll do it again tomorrow and it will get more real
as the days wear on. I've also got some serious mods to do so that will cut
into my flying. I've got a 40 hour test plan. I guess I'd better get to it.
PS Thanks, everyone, for all the help. And for those of you still building:
it's worth it. Really.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
__________________________________________________
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! --
|