Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:47 AM - Re: 4473 is flying again. (john perry)
2. 03:49 AM - Re: 4473 is flying again. (Fox5flyer)
3. 08:17 AM - Re: 4473 is flying again. (Guy Buchanan)
4. 08:17 AM - Re: Re: Stall in a side slip (Guy Buchanan)
5. 09:13 AM - Re: 4473 is flying again. (Eric)
6. 09:17 AM - Re: 4473 is flying again. (Lowell Fitt)
7. 12:39 PM - Re: Re: Stall in a side slip (Fox5flyer)
8. 01:55 PM - Re: Stall in a side slip (Michael Gibbs)
9. 02:02 PM - Re: Re: Stall in a side slip. Side-V-Forward Slip (Michel Verheughe)
10. 02:58 PM - Re: Re: Stall in a side slip (John Anderson)
11. 04:56 PM - Photo of 4473 (QSS)
12. 05:37 PM - Re: Photo of 4473 (Rexster)
13. 06:04 PM - Re: Photo of 4473 (QSS)
14. 06:52 PM - Re: 4473 is flying again. (Rex Shaw)
15. 07:14 PM - Re: Stall in a side slip (Colin Durey)
16. 07:34 PM - Need blank Model 5 panel... (Black Cat)
17. 08:03 PM - Re: Stall in a side slip (QSS)
18. 08:16 PM - Re: 4473 is flying again. (QSS)
19. 08:23 PM - Looking for gas leak (wingnut)
20. 08:23 PM - Re: 4473 is flying again. (ron schick)
21. 09:01 PM - Re: Looking for gas leak (AMuller589@aol.com)
22. 09:42 PM - Solo! (Greaves)
23. 09:42 PM - Leaking tank. (James Shumaker)
24. 10:00 PM - Re: Leaking tank. (Rexster)
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: | Re: 4473 is flying again. |
Awsome way to go Graeme . Many more happy hours of flying to you and
your passengers .We need pics of the new Lady in the air lol .
Take care fly safe fly low fly slow
John Perry
kitfox 2 N718PD
----- Original Message -----
From: QSS
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 12:41 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: 4473 is flying again.
Hi Guys, have just come back from flying 4473. I had 30 minutes in the
circuit checking controls and instruments etc. I feel like a kid in a
lolly shop and will most probably sleep with a ear to ear grin tonight.
All appeared to be OK except revs around 5000 created some vibration
which I'm putting down to a blade being out of sink to the rest. The
rebuild took 7 months and was completed with the help of many people
will read this thread. Thank you all from not only me but from my kids
and wife who believe without wings Im unbearable to live with. I have
kept a folder from all those kind people who sent best wishes, technical
support and even parts. Your names will all be placed onto the engine
cowl to display my appreciation to you all. Each time I fly you will fly
with me.
Kind regards to all
Graeme
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 4473 is flying again. |
Congrats Graeme. Keep us posted.
Deke
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: QSS
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 1:41 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: 4473 is flying again.
Hi Guys, have just come back from flying 4473. I had 30 minutes in the
circuit checking controls and instruments etc. I feel like a kid in a
lolly shop and will most probably sleep with a ear to ear grin tonight.
All appeared to be OK except revs around 5000 created some vibration
which I'm putting down to a blade being out of sink to the rest. The
rebuild took 7 months and was completed with the help of many people
will read this thread. Thank you all from not only me but from my kids
and wife who believe without wings Im unbearable to live with. I have
kept a folder from all those kind people who sent best wishes, technical
support and even parts. Your names will all be placed onto the engine
cowl to display my appreciation to you all. Each time I fly you will fly
with me.
Kind regards to all
Graeme
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: 4473 is flying again. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 10:41 PM 7/29/2006, you wrote:
>Hi Guys, have just come back from flying 4473.
Congratulation Graeme!
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: | Re: Stall in a side slip |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 02:43 PM 7/29/2006, you wrote:
>When I do a side slip on final (with engine on or not) I always do it
>with left stick and right rudder so that, from the left-hand seat, I
>get a better view of the runway. My right wing is high, my left is low.
>Which is the trailing one? The right wing?
Yes.
>I think I read (as I write in my previous email) that a stall and slip
>was less dangerous than a stall and skid. Do you mean it is the
>opposite?
The reason a skid is worse IN A TURN is because in a stabilized turn the
inside wing is slower than the outside wing. Thus the inside wing ALWAYS
has a higher angle of attack than the outside. Now it gets a little
complex. When you skid or slip an aircraft with dihedral, the leading
wing's angle of attack increases, and the following wing's angle of attack
decreases, all along the length of the dihedral. (This is why you can turn
with rudder only.) In a skid, with rudder into the turn, the outside wing's
angle of attack increases. To prevent roll to the inside you apply outside,
(cross-controlled,) aileron. In a typical aircraft with a short, attached,
aileron out near the wing tip, this means the angle of attack over the
inside aileron is higher than that just inboard of the aileron and MUCH
higher than that of the opposite wing. Therefore the flow over the inside
aileron stalls first, resulting in a terrific rolling moment to the inside.
If the skid is extreme enough to actually blanket some of the inside wing
then the cross-control must be increased to offset the reduction in
effective area. The situation is reversed in a slip. With outside rudder
you lift the outside wing with aileron, increasing the local angle of
attack, but the outside wing has a lower angle of attack to begin with
because it's going faster. Therefore the slip can be considered "safer"
than the skid. (Note, however, you CAN spin out of a slipped turn, it just
takes a little more work. You flip over the top rather than dropping to the
inside giving you a little more time, as I think Dave already mentioned.)
With our flaperons I'm not sure we run the risks that normal ailerons do,
since our flaperons are really fully flying "wings". I don't know whether
we roll because we change the angle of attack of the wing, or if we roll
because our "little wings" push the "big wings" around. If the latter, we
may be much less sensitive to slip / skid spins. (Unless the flaperon stalls.)
The other way a slip or skid can ruin your day is more dynamic. If you
begin a sharp turn with your wings very close to the critical angle of
attack and then kick in an abrupt dose of inside rudder to tighten the turn
the inside wing slows dramatically, increasing its angle of attack. As it
begins to drop due to the resulting decrease in lift, (remember lift is
proportional to the velocity squared,) the angle of attack increases still
more resulting in a stall of that wing. (If it hasn't stalled already.) You
snap into a spin even before you've had time to react with any
cross-control aileron. (Of course, any aileron you might apply merely
exacerbates the problem.) I think gliders are particularly prone to this
type of skid-spin because of their long spans.
Clear as mud?
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 4473 is flying again. |
Great going Graeme !
cant wait to finish rebuilding mine.
Eric
----- Original Message -----
From: QSS
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 12:41 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: 4473 is flying again.
Hi Guys, have just come back from flying 4473. I had 30 minutes in the
circuit checking controls and instruments etc. I feel like a kid in a
lolly shop and will most probably sleep with a ear to ear grin tonight.
All appeared to be OK except revs around 5000 created some vibration
which I'm putting down to a blade being out of sink to the rest. The
rebuild took 7 months and was completed with the help of many people
will read this thread. Thank you all from not only me but from my kids
and wife who believe without wings Im unbearable to live with. I have
kept a folder from all those kind people who sent best wishes, technical
support and even parts. Your names will all be placed onto the engine
cowl to display my appreciation to you all. Each time I fly you will fly
with me.
Kind regards to all
Graeme
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 4473 is flying again. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Graeme,
This is good news.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 10:41 PM
Hi Guys, have just come back from flying 4473. I had 30 minutes in the
circuit checking controls and instruments etc. I feel like a kid in a lolly
shop and will most probably sleep with a ear to ear grin tonight. All
appeared to be OK except revs around 5000 created some vibration which I'm
putting down to a blade being out of sink to the rest. The rebuild took 7
months and was completed with the help of many people will read this thread.
Thank you all from not only me but from my kids and wife who believe without
wings Im unbearable to live with. I have kept a folder from all those kind
people who sent best wishes, technical support and even parts. Your names
will all be placed onto the engine cowl to display my appreciation to you
all. Each time I fly you will fly with me.
Kind regards to all
Graeme
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: Stall in a side slip |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Great explanation Guy. Thanks!
Deke
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 11:05 AM
>
> The reason a skid is worse IN A TURN is because in a stabilized turn the
> inside wing is slower than the outside wing. Thus the inside wing ALWAYS
> has a higher angle of attack than the outside. Now it gets a little
> complex. When you skid or slip an aircraft with dihedral, the leading
> wing's angle of attack increases, and the following wing's angle of attack
> decreases, all along the length of the dihedral. (This is why you can turn
> with rudder only.) In a skid, with rudder into the turn, the outside
wing's
> angle of attack increases. To prevent roll to the inside you apply
outside,
> (cross-controlled,) aileron. In a typical aircraft with a short, attached,
> aileron out near the wing tip, this means the angle of attack over the
> inside aileron is higher than that just inboard of the aileron and MUCH
> higher than that of the opposite wing. Therefore the flow over the inside
> aileron stalls first, resulting in a terrific rolling moment to the
inside.
> If the skid is extreme enough to actually blanket some of the inside wing
> then the cross-control must be increased to offset the reduction in
> effective area. The situation is reversed in a slip. With outside rudder
> you lift the outside wing with aileron, increasing the local angle of
> attack, but the outside wing has a lower angle of attack to begin with
> because it's going faster. Therefore the slip can be considered "safer"
> than the skid. (Note, however, you CAN spin out of a slipped turn, it just
> takes a little more work. You flip over the top rather than dropping to
the
> inside giving you a little more time, as I think Dave already mentioned.)
>
> With our flaperons I'm not sure we run the risks that normal ailerons do,
> since our flaperons are really fully flying "wings". I don't know whether
> we roll because we change the angle of attack of the wing, or if we roll
> because our "little wings" push the "big wings" around. If the latter, we
> may be much less sensitive to slip / skid spins. (Unless the flaperon
stalls.)
>
> The other way a slip or skid can ruin your day is more dynamic. If you
> begin a sharp turn with your wings very close to the critical angle of
> attack and then kick in an abrupt dose of inside rudder to tighten the
turn
> the inside wing slows dramatically, increasing its angle of attack. As it
> begins to drop due to the resulting decrease in lift, (remember lift is
> proportional to the velocity squared,) the angle of attack increases still
> more resulting in a stall of that wing. (If it hasn't stalled already.)
You
> snap into a spin even before you've had time to react with any
> cross-control aileron. (Of course, any aileron you might apply merely
> exacerbates the problem.) I think gliders are particularly prone to this
> type of skid-spin because of their long spans.
>
> Clear as mud?
>
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
>
>
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: Stall in a side slip |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Michel sez:
>I think I read (as I write in my previous email) that a stall and
>slip was less dangerous than a stall and skid. Do you mean it is the
>opposite?
Michel, my friend, do not kid yourself. Any time the rudder and
ailerons are badly uncoordinated and the aircraft stalls you are
setting yourself up for a spin. There is no such thing as a "less
dangerous" spin or a "less dangerous" way to impact the ground with
the aircraft essentially out of control. When the airplane stalls,
that powerful Kitfox rudder will be doing it's job out there and the
plane will roll to the side the rudder is on.
The weekend before my accident I was up practicing stalls and spins.
My Model IV was a very docile spinner--it would usually just fly out
of the spin in less than one turn unless I aggressively held the
stick full back and the rudder full into the spin. Even then I could
not get a full turn to the left under any conditions.
Spins are not something to fear, they are something to be well
understood and, in my opinion, practiced and perfected. I believe
that had I not been sharp on stall/spin recovery at the time of my
accident, things would have been much worse. By the time the
airplane hit the ground, we were recovered from the stall and
climbing out again (too bad the terrain was climbing even faster!).
>I never use flaps on landing! It is, IMHO useless. I only use flaps
>to get fast out of a long, wet grass short field and that's all.
I don't know how the Model III compares with the Model IV, but my IV
was a wonderful performer with the flaps down. A half-flap takeoff
gave me the shortest ground rolls and the steepest climb-outs for
those short field situations, while full flaps on landing provided an
extra measure of drag and very low touch-down speeds. With full
flaps and a little effort, I could touch down before the numbers and
turn off into the run-up area on the local field's short runway!
Of course, my 'fox had a nose wheel and the flaperons were rigged for
22 degrees of full deflection. Your mileage will vary, of course.
>About spins, I have done two, with my instructor, enough for me to
>understand that it is forbidden and that I will probably never be
>able to recover from one.
I'm sure that's not true, Michel. Others may disagree but I find
spin recovery easier than planting a perfect 3 point landing in a
tail dragger. Many light airplanes, such as the Cessna 152, will
simply fly out of a spin if you let go of the controls (this leaves
you in a descending spiral that will still require some pilot action
to return to straight and level flight). My Model IV was like
that--let go of the controls and she would just start flying again.
As for slips, I've seen a lot of interesting theories advanced on the
list this last week. Not that the difference matters much, but a
side slip is what you do to maintain your ground track when a wind is
trying to push you left or right of the runway. A forward slip is
what you do when you are high on final approach and need to get down
faster. You aren't slipping to one side of your ground track, you
are slipping forward along it. What would you call a day when both
happen? I have no idea.
Just my two cents worth.
Mike G.
N728KF
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Stall in a side slip. Side-V-Forward Slip |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Jul 29, 2006, at 11:18 PM, AMuller589@aol.com wrote:
> Go back to your basic FLIGHT TRAINING MANUAL AC 61-21 to see what
> these are called.
... hum, my dear friend, I am a French-speaking Belgian who has spent
the past 30 years in Norway. It was hard enough for me to pass my
utralight aircraft license in something else than my mother tongue. I
can only take it as a compliment that you believe I had an English
language aviation training. :-)
On Jul 30, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Guy Buchanan wrote:
> Clear as mud?
I can only but appreciate the time you, and others, spent to explain
that in details, Guy. Clear as mud? Let's say that it is part of what
one learns when learning about aviation. But it is surely interesting
to read it again, maybe formulated in a different way, or by using
other examples. It was certainly good reading.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: Stall in a side slip |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
Message 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 |
|
Hi Guys, here's a photo of 4473. There's more to do but I can now tag
along with the rest of the group.
Regards
Graeme
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: Photo of 4473 |
Graeme,
Is that one of the luggage pods that Denney Aircraft used to sell in t
he late 80's? We were just talking about them at Oshkosh a few days ago.
Rex in Michigan
-- "QSS" <msm@byterocky.net> wrote:
Hi Guys, here's a photo of 4473. There's more to do but I can now tag al
ong with the rest of the group. Regards
Graeme
<html><P>Graeme,</P>
<P> Is that one of the luggage pods that Denney Aircraft used to s
ell in the late 80's? We were just talking about them at Oshkosh a few d
ays ago.</P>
<P>Rex in Michigan</P>
<P><BR><BR>-- "QSS" <msm@byterocky.net> wrote:<BR><
/P>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2912" name=GENERATOR>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hi Guys, here's a photo of 4473. There'
s more to do but I can now tag along with the rest of the group.</FONT><
/DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards<BR>Graeme </FONT></DIV></html>
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: Photo of 4473 |
No, that's my own design. Its aircraft grade ply with glass overlay. It
was surprisingly easy to make, its very light and strong and will carry
all the camping gear I'll need. It appears to have made no difference to
the flying charateristics of the plane.
Regards
Graeme ----- Original Message -----
From: Rexster
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Photo of 4473
Graeme,
Is that one of the luggage pods that Denney Aircraft used to sell in
the late 80's? We were just talking about them at Oshkosh a few days
ago.
Rex in Michigan
-- "QSS" <msm@byterocky.net> wrote:
Hi Guys, here's a photo of 4473. There's more to do but I can now tag
along with the rest of the group.
Regards
Graeme
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
No virus found in this incoming message.
28/07/2006
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: 4473 is flying again. |
Congratulations Graeme,
good job in a relatively
short time. I'm sure you will get many hours of enjoyment. Come down
this way sometime !
Rex.
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: Stall in a side slip |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Colin Durey" <colin@ptclhk.com>
Micahel,
I did most of my early gliding training in a Blanik, over South-East
Queensland (Australia). Its a great aircraft to learn in as it is very
forgiving to novice pilots. All the same, 80 - 90kts cross-country without
an engine is not bad, eh? I still remember the puzzled radio call from a
152 pilot after we passed him at 9000ft one day. One memorable glider we
flew(?) was the Kookaburra. It was wood and fabric construction and it had
an open cockpit... you really knew you were flying. Unfortunately, it had
a glide angle only slightly better than a streamlined brick, so flights
tended to be fairly short. We could get 1200-1500 ft off the end of the
wire in it, but the nearest regular source of lift was about 1 mile from
the end of the strip so, on marginal days, you had to be good to get there
with enough height so that if you couldn't "get away", you could get back
to the strip with a comfortable margin.
I have only one problem with what you said in your reply, namely:
"Well, stalls and spins are not necessary for safe flying, Colin. But,
IMHO, to be able to do precision landing with no engine, is safety
training."
The second part - yes... the first part, absolutely NO!
A key principle of pilot training, in this part of the world at least, is
that pilots need to be proficient in all aspects of flight control, and
competent in recognising and responding to anything which might cause a
danger to the continued safe operation of the aircraft. Your second remark
aligns with that concept. Up until 1985, Abinitio pilot training here
included incipient stalls, full stalls, incipient spins and full spins.
After that time, for a few years, full stalls and spins were not part of
training. As a result, there was a whole bracket of pilots who had not
experienced a fully developed stall or spin, and thus had no experience in
recovering from them. I recall flying with a young lady who had recently
obtained her PPL. We flew to the training area near Brisbane and I asked
her to do a stall. When she got to the point of the pre-stall buffeting,
she lowered the nose and applied power. After a sarcastic remark from me,
I asked her to do another stall... same procedure. I then proceeded to put
the aircraft into a full stall and told her to do the recovery. She
couldn't. Despite her ashen face, we went on to spins. Same thing with the
spin. Interestingly, on approach back into Archerfield, she came in high
(probably a little shaken from what had happened), and proceeded to do a
perfectly good side-slip to lose height.
After about 5 or 6 years, full stalls and spins were re-included in pilot
training. While I don't have any official data to refer to, the anecdotal
evidence is that the number of un-intended stall/spin incidents increased
significantly during that period, and persisted for a while thereafter.
The problem was that, these pilots never really understood what a fully
developed stall or spin was like, and did not go through the actual entry
sequence and process of recover and thus have true experience. While an
explanation of the process, "complete with pictures", was provided, the
truth really is that "Showing is better than telling".
Close to ground manouvers, ie: landing and take-off, are when un-intended
stall/spin incidents are most likely to occur, and usually have the most
dramatic (tragic) outcomes. Slipping (forward, inward, outward, or
whichever way) on approach is a flight condition which puts you close to
the edge of the safe flight envelope. Practical experience in how the
aircraft feels, responds, and is tending to act, is vital for a pilot to
be able to manage the continued safe operation of the aircraft.
Especially, to be able to predict, and respond quickly and correctly to
what happens, or, is about to happen.
Practicing, on a regular basis, engine failure (on t/o and landing), steep
decents, stalls, spins, and side/forward slips, etc, etc, are all, I
believe, vital for for every pilot. After all, "Practice makes perfect"
(well, nearly). Just do the practice in a way (ie: in a location and at an
altitude) that is least likely to cause a major problem if things don't go
the way you planned. Practice engine outs and side-slips in the circuit
every once in a while. However, don't make it a habit to use side-slips as
a standard approach procedure, nor make high approaches standard, which
will set you up to do side-slips.
I hope I haven't rambled on too much for you, its just that this is a
subject particularly close to me. I really envy the great scenery you fly
over Michael, and have enjoyed looking at the photos you have posted. I
hope to have my 'Fox in the air in the next couple of months, so will be
able to send you some of the area around here. I would love to come and
visit one day.
Regards
Colin Durey
Sydney - Australia
+61-418-677073 (M)
+61-2-945466162 (F)
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> On Jul 29, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Colin Durey wrote:
>> Most gliders have "dive brakes" or "speed brakes" (spoilers)
>
> Indeed, Colin. But since I don't have speed brakes on my Kitfox, I use
> sideslipping.
> incidentally when my son took his Utralight license, last year on my
> Kitfox, after he flew his first solo, I asked him how it was, having
> still in mind my own terrific experience. "Ok," he answered.
> - "What? Just ok?"
> - "Yes, it was much more exiting when I flew solo in a glider (as you
> say yourself, Colin) 15 years ago, knowing I had only one chance to
> land the bird."
>
> My son had about 50 hours on the club's Blanik and I was a few time up
> with him, as my only glider experience.
> When I started with the Kitfox, three years ago, I became interested by
> a fact: In Norway, your normal insurance doesn't cover you for sports
> like diving, parachuting, mountains climbing and ... ultralight flying.
> But it does for glider flying, which is considered as safe as ...
> sitting in your garden or shopping. So, it became clear to me that if I
> wanted to fly safe, I had to fly ... like a glider pilot, always be
> ready to be in gliding distance to a safe landing.
>
>> By all means, after some qualified training, continue to do engine
>> failure, stall, spin, and side-slip practice, but do it up high where
>> you've got time to recover, and plan every approach early and well.
>
> Well, stalls and spins are not necessary for safe flying, Colin. But,
> IMHO, to be able to do precision landing with no engine, is safety
> training. If I, or my son, ever loose engine power, I want us to do the
> right thing without hesitation. As opposed to sailing, in aviation any
> fraction of a second can make the difference between life and death.
> But as for sailing, I know I need to have a plan. And when I fly, I try
> to note any place I could land on because I think that, if the engine
> starts to go wrong, it is better to land safely on something that is
> right under me, than to try to make it to an airfield that may be
> beyond a forest, a mountain, a stretch of water. The action then is to
> eyeball that emergency field, and fly the plane for a safe landing, as
> trained for, almost as a reflex. Wouldn't you agree?
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
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: | Need blank Model 5 panel... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Black Cat" <blackcatmoan@hotmail.com>
Hi Everyone.
My name is Tony and this is my first post.
I've been looking online for a blank instrument panel for my Model V
tail-dragger, so I can redesign it.
Unfortunately, all I find are companies that cut them for you and sell them
with instruments.
But that's no fun. I want to do the wiring and dremeling myself.
I would greatly appreciate someone pointing me in the right direction.
Wish you all blue skies.
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: | Re: Stall in a side slip |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "QSS" <msm@byterocky.net>
There good points you make Colin and unfortunately for today's pilots coming
through the RAAust, those skills of recovery from unusual attitudes will
most likely never be learnt. Its unfortunate that other than stalls, the
basic spins, stall turns, wing overs etc are illegal in our aircraft. We all
know that structurally most will take them in their stride but for a person
to hold a pilots license and yet never experience those basic manuovourses
is a real shame. As you rightly pointed out, how many of the pilots who lost
there lives in the mid 80's would be alive today if these basics skills had
be taught to them. A sedate stall can very quickly turn into something we
generally try to avoid and it is inexcusable for people to be unprepared for
such an event.
Regards
Graeme ----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 12:13 PM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Colin Durey" <colin@ptclhk.com>
>
> Micahel,
>
> I did most of my early gliding training in a Blanik, over South-East
> Queensland (Australia). Its a great aircraft to learn in as it is very
> forgiving to novice pilots. All the same, 80 - 90kts cross-country without
> an engine is not bad, eh? I still remember the puzzled radio call from a
> 152 pilot after we passed him at 9000ft one day. One memorable glider we
> flew(?) was the Kookaburra. It was wood and fabric construction and it had
> an open cockpit... you really knew you were flying. Unfortunately, it had
> a glide angle only slightly better than a streamlined brick, so flights
> tended to be fairly short. We could get 1200-1500 ft off the end of the
> wire in it, but the nearest regular source of lift was about 1 mile from
> the end of the strip so, on marginal days, you had to be good to get there
> with enough height so that if you couldn't "get away", you could get back
> to the strip with a comfortable margin.
>
> I have only one problem with what you said in your reply, namely:
>
> "Well, stalls and spins are not necessary for safe flying, Colin. But,
> IMHO, to be able to do precision landing with no engine, is safety
> training."
>
> The second part - yes... the first part, absolutely NO!
>
> A key principle of pilot training, in this part of the world at least, is
> that pilots need to be proficient in all aspects of flight control, and
> competent in recognising and responding to anything which might cause a
> danger to the continued safe operation of the aircraft. Your second remark
> aligns with that concept. Up until 1985, Abinitio pilot training here
> included incipient stalls, full stalls, incipient spins and full spins.
> After that time, for a few years, full stalls and spins were not part of
> training. As a result, there was a whole bracket of pilots who had not
> experienced a fully developed stall or spin, and thus had no experience in
> recovering from them. I recall flying with a young lady who had recently
> obtained her PPL. We flew to the training area near Brisbane and I asked
> her to do a stall. When she got to the point of the pre-stall buffeting,
> she lowered the nose and applied power. After a sarcastic remark from me,
> I asked her to do another stall... same procedure. I then proceeded to put
> the aircraft into a full stall and told her to do the recovery. She
> couldn't. Despite her ashen face, we went on to spins. Same thing with the
> spin. Interestingly, on approach back into Archerfield, she came in high
> (probably a little shaken from what had happened), and proceeded to do a
> perfectly good side-slip to lose height.
>
> After about 5 or 6 years, full stalls and spins were re-included in pilot
> training. While I don't have any official data to refer to, the anecdotal
> evidence is that the number of un-intended stall/spin incidents increased
> significantly during that period, and persisted for a while thereafter.
> The problem was that, these pilots never really understood what a fully
> developed stall or spin was like, and did not go through the actual entry
> sequence and process of recover and thus have true experience. While an
> explanation of the process, "complete with pictures", was provided, the
> truth really is that "Showing is better than telling".
>
> Close to ground manouvers, ie: landing and take-off, are when un-intended
> stall/spin incidents are most likely to occur, and usually have the most
> dramatic (tragic) outcomes. Slipping (forward, inward, outward, or
> whichever way) on approach is a flight condition which puts you close to
> the edge of the safe flight envelope. Practical experience in how the
> aircraft feels, responds, and is tending to act, is vital for a pilot to
> be able to manage the continued safe operation of the aircraft.
> Especially, to be able to predict, and respond quickly and correctly to
> what happens, or, is about to happen.
>
> Practicing, on a regular basis, engine failure (on t/o and landing), steep
> decents, stalls, spins, and side/forward slips, etc, etc, are all, I
> believe, vital for for every pilot. After all, "Practice makes perfect"
> (well, nearly). Just do the practice in a way (ie: in a location and at an
> altitude) that is least likely to cause a major problem if things don't go
> the way you planned. Practice engine outs and side-slips in the circuit
> every once in a while. However, don't make it a habit to use side-slips as
> a standard approach procedure, nor make high approaches standard, which
> will set you up to do side-slips.
>
> I hope I haven't rambled on too much for you, its just that this is a
> subject particularly close to me. I really envy the great scenery you fly
> over Michael, and have enjoyed looking at the photos you have posted. I
> hope to have my 'Fox in the air in the next couple of months, so will be
> able to send you some of the area around here. I would love to come and
> visit one day.
>
> Regards
>
> Colin Durey
> Sydney - Australia
> +61-418-677073 (M)
> +61-2-945466162 (F)
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>>
>> On Jul 29, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Colin Durey wrote:
>>> Most gliders have "dive brakes" or "speed brakes" (spoilers)
>>
>> Indeed, Colin. But since I don't have speed brakes on my Kitfox, I use
>> sideslipping.
>> incidentally when my son took his Utralight license, last year on my
>> Kitfox, after he flew his first solo, I asked him how it was, having
>> still in mind my own terrific experience. "Ok," he answered.
>> - "What? Just ok?"
>> - "Yes, it was much more exiting when I flew solo in a glider (as you
>> say yourself, Colin) 15 years ago, knowing I had only one chance to
>> land the bird."
>>
>> My son had about 50 hours on the club's Blanik and I was a few time up
>> with him, as my only glider experience.
>> When I started with the Kitfox, three years ago, I became interested by
>> a fact: In Norway, your normal insurance doesn't cover you for sports
>> like diving, parachuting, mountains climbing and ... ultralight flying.
>> But it does for glider flying, which is considered as safe as ...
>> sitting in your garden or shopping. So, it became clear to me that if I
>> wanted to fly safe, I had to fly ... like a glider pilot, always be
>> ready to be in gliding distance to a safe landing.
>>
>>> By all means, after some qualified training, continue to do engine
>>> failure, stall, spin, and side-slip practice, but do it up high where
>>> you've got time to recover, and plan every approach early and well.
>>
>> Well, stalls and spins are not necessary for safe flying, Colin. But,
>> IMHO, to be able to do precision landing with no engine, is safety
>> training. If I, or my son, ever loose engine power, I want us to do the
>> right thing without hesitation. As opposed to sailing, in aviation any
>> fraction of a second can make the difference between life and death.
>> But as for sailing, I know I need to have a plan. And when I fly, I try
>> to note any place I could land on because I think that, if the engine
>> starts to go wrong, it is better to land safely on something that is
>> right under me, than to try to make it to an airfield that may be
>> beyond a forest, a mountain, a stretch of water. The action then is to
>> eyeball that emergency field, and fly the plane for a safe landing, as
>> trained for, almost as a reflex. Wouldn't you agree?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
>
>
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: | Re: 4473 is flying again. |
Thanks Rex, I still cant believe that brain teaser you sent me. It made
me a bit concerned about my IQ rating.
Regards
Graeme
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Rex Shaw
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 4:22 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 4473 is flying again.
Congratulations Graeme,
good job in a
relatively short time. I'm sure you will get many hours of enjoyment.
Come down this way sometime !
Rex.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
No virus found in this incoming message.
28/07/2006
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: | Looking for gas leak |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
I opened the door to 824KF yesterday to find that she reeked of gas. I guess I
have a leak but I can't find any evidence of it (other than the smell). Any ideas?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=50914#50914
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: | 4473 is flying again. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "ron schick" <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
The best news I've heard for days! Many dry landings. Ron NB Ore
>From: "QSS" <msm@byterocky.net>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Kitfox-List: 4473 is flying again.
>Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:41:31 +1000
>
>Hi Guys, have just come back from flying 4473. I had 30 minutes in the
>circuit checking controls and instruments etc. I feel like a kid in a lolly
>shop and will most probably sleep with a ear to ear grin tonight. All
>appeared to be OK except revs around 5000 created some vibration which I'm
>putting down to a blade being out of sink to the rest. The rebuild took 7
>months and was completed with the help of many people will read this
>thread. Thank you all from not only me but from my kids and wife who
>believe without wings Im unbearable to live with. I have kept a folder from
>all those kind people who sent best wishes, technical support and even
>parts. Your names will all be placed onto the engine cowl to display my
>appreciation to you all. Each time I fly you will fly with me.
>
>Kind regards to all
>Graeme
>
_________________________________________________________________
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: Looking for gas leak |
I don't know what kind of drains you have but check to see if your doors hit
the drains when open
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 |
|
One step closer to Kitfox flight!
While building my Series 7, I bought a recently restored Aeronca Chief
to get my rating. I wanted a light sport taildragger and always had a
thing for Chiefs.
Today, at about 3:30pm at Lenhardt's Airhaven (7s9), I took a big step
and soloed. It was a bumpy day here with thermals sweeping around and
changing the winds....at least that is my excuse for a couple of bumpy
landings. To balance them out I got an absolute greaser down.
What a feeling to solo!
Can't wait to build many more hours in the Chief while completing the
Series 7.
If I noticed a big difference when the instructor hopped out of the 65
hp Chief, I can't wait to see what a Kitfox can do solo!
Wade Greaves
Oregon City,OR
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 |
|
If it is an alluminum tank it could be at the seam at the edge or at a spot weld
for the baffle. I have a tank pulled and have one of each. The one on the
seam did not show itself easily. The gas would run in a sheet down the side of
the panel and run to the corner of the wing and drip out.
Jim Shumaker
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: Leaking tank. |
I had the same problem when I finished mine. After a thorough search, I
found nothing. I checked with a buddy of mine and he said he had had the
same problem and redid his whole fuel system with no results. Turned ou
t the smell was coming from the plastic header tank. It permeates the sm
ell without leaking. Yep, it was my problem too. Is it yours by chance?
Rex in Michigan
-- James Shumaker <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
If it is an alluminum tank it could be at the seam at the edge or at a s
pot weld for the baffle. I have a tank pulled and have one of each. Th
e one on the seam did not show itself easily. The gas would run in a sh
eet down the side of the panel and run to the corner of the wing and dri
p out. Jim Shumaker
<html><P>I had the same problem when I finished mine. After a thoro
ugh search, I found nothing. I checked with a buddy of mine and he said
he had had the same problem and redid his whole fuel system with no resu
lts. Turned out the smell was coming from the plastic header tank. It pe
rmeates the smell without leaking. Yep, it was my problem too. Is it you
rs by chance?</P>
<P>Rex in Michigan</P>
<P><BR><BR>-- James Shumaker <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.ne
t> wrote:<BR></P>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, t
imes, serif">
<DIV>If it is an alluminum tank it could be at the seam at the edge or a
t a spot weld for the baffle. I have a tank pulled and have one of
each. The one on the seam did not show itself easily. The g
as would run in a sheet down the side of the panel and run to the corner
of the wing and drip out. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Jim Shumaker</DIV></DIV></html>
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! --
|