Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:43 AM - Re: Re: why tailwheel (Michel Verheughe)
2. 04:07 AM - Re: Re: why tailwheel (Brian Rodgers)
3. 05:09 AM - Re: Re: why tailwheel (Lynn Matteson)
4. 05:24 AM - Re: Re: why tailwheel (Lynn Matteson)
5. 05:41 AM - Re: Re: why tailwheel (kirkhull)
6. 05:51 AM - (off-topic) Keyboard. WAS: why tailwheel (Michel Verheughe)
7. 05:54 AM - Re: Re: why tailwheel (Michel Verheughe)
8. 07:09 AM - Re: Re: why tailwheel (Harold Flynn)
9. 07:16 AM - Re: why tailwheels (Harold Flynn)
10. 07:49 AM - Re: (off-topic) Keyboard. WAS: why tailwheel (Lyle Persels)
11. 07:52 AM - Re: (off-topic) Keyboard. (Michel Verheughe)
12. 09:11 AM - why tailwheels--bad day at Oshkosh (AMuller589@aol.com)
13. 10:17 AM - Re: why tailwheels--bad day at Oshkosh (Dave G.)
14. 10:50 AM - Re: why tailwheels--bad day at Oshkosh (Brian Rodgers)
15. 11:09 AM - Re: Building a new Fox ()
16. 11:14 AM - Re: Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation (Terry Hughes)
17. 11:37 AM - tail wheel (John Oakley)
18. 01:08 PM - [ Noel Loveys ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! (Email List Photo Shares)
19. 01:19 PM - Re: why tailwheels--bad day at Oshkosh (kirkhull)
20. 01:34 PM - Re: why tailwheels (kirkhull)
21. 02:41 PM - why tailwheels (Rexster)
22. 04:10 PM - Tailwheel Tango (Colin Durey)
23. 04:16 PM - Kitfox in Thailand? (Colin Durey)
24. 04:16 PM - Re: Ethanol and wing tanks Ethanol and wing tanks (Michael Gibbs)
25. 04:22 PM - Re: Building a new Fox (Michael Gibbs)
26. 05:37 PM - Re: Kitfox in Thailand? (WBL)
27. 06:27 PM - Re: (off-topic) Keyboard. WAS: why tailwheel (Jose M. Toro)
28. 06:48 PM - Re: Michigan Kitfoxers (casey flynn)
29. 10:02 PM - Re: Potential Customer (Kaufjm@aol.com)
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: why tailwheel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Guys,
I have followed this thread with great interest. Taildragger pilots
swear by taildraggers. Macintosh computer users swear by Macintosh.
Volkswagen car drivers swear by Volkswagen. .... soooo, the grass isn't
greener on the other side, after all - right? :-)
Cheers,
Michel - a happy taildragger pilot.
do not archive
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: why tailwheel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Brian Rodgers" <brodg@texas.net>
Whoa, Michel, that Macintosh/Volkswagen analogy is just..... wrong and my
neighbor's dry grass is just as brown as mine this summer!
Brian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 2:42 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: why tailwheel
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> Guys,
> I have followed this thread with great interest. Taildragger pilots
> swear by taildraggers. Macintosh computer users swear by Macintosh.
> Volkswagen car drivers swear by Volkswagen. .... soooo, the grass isn't
> greener on the other side, after all - right? :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Michel - a happy taildragger pilot.
>
> do not archive
>
>
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: why tailwheel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Jose' - (sorry, my computer won't let me put the accent where it
belongs...I'm on an eMac...any help, Michel?)
I managed a wheel landing the other day, through some fault of my
own...just didn't get the tail down as soon as I got close to the
ground and the wind went away. It rolled along a little ways before I
realized that it WAS down, and lowered the tail. I think I'll let my
instructor show me the REAL way to do it though. : )
Lynn
On Friday, August 18, 2006, at 09:11 PM, Jose M. Toro wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro"
> <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
>
> Lynn:
>
> When my father learned to fly 55 years ago, all
> trainers where taildraggers. He had no problem
> transitioning to trikes!!! My opinion is that your
> instructor is right, and you must consider yourself
> privileged of learning to fly in a taildragger.
>
> Not every trike pilot knows how to handle cross wind
> landings. If you fly taildraggers, you either handle
> cross wind, or experience a ground loop. If you are a
> trike pilot, you have the option to force the nose
> wheel to the runway to gain directional control.
>
> Are you practicing wheel landings? In a strong, cross
> wind, a tri-point may not be an option.
>
> Nothing wrong with trikes, however, you miss some of
> the fun.
>
> Jos
>
>
> --- Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net> wrote:
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson
>> <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>>
>>
>> Because most pilots don't know how to fly a
>> tailwheel? And because most
>> pilots learned on trikes (nosegear)? And trikes are
>> easier for people
>> to learn on, so give 'em the easy way out? Why did
>> we all learn to
>> first ride a tricycle, then a bicycle? Because it
>> was easier. My
>> instructor keeps telling me that all I did in flight
>> school was learn
>> to have lazy feet. What I learned at the local
>> flight center was that
>> the insurance companies drive the general aircraft
>> industry, and the
>> records show that accident rates went down when
>> trikes came out, so the
>> insurance companies dictated that schools shall use
>> trikes, or not be
>> insured. It's like anything else, the masses rule.
>>
>> I'm just as rookie pilot with about 60 solo hours in
>> one plane...a
>> taildragger, so I may know not of which I speak...:)
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>> On Friday, August 18, 2006, at 11:26 AM, kitfoxmike
>> wrote:
>>
>>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxmike"
>> <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Why is it that all rentable airplanes are tri
>> gear???
>>> --------
>>> kitfoxmike
>>
>>
>>
>> browse
>> Subscriptions page,
>> FAQ,
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>>
>> Web Forums!
>>
>>
>> Admin.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
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: why tailwheel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
My first videotape recorder was a Beta, first brand new car was a
Corvair, I raced Chrysler Hemi's (the cast iron 392 version...not the
proven 426 kind) because I hated the Chevy's that were the rage of the
day, my only two computers have been Macs (learned on a Mac), I live in
a log cabin, I fly a Jabiru-engined Kitfox because I've seen enough
Rotax's and RV-X's, and sometimes I make a tailwind landing just to go
against the flow (NO, just kidding about the t'wind landing). I just
don't like following the crowd, I guess...well, maybe except for the
Hemi's....and as far as the grass is concerned, who's got time to look
at the grass when there's flying weather?
Lynn
do not archive
On Saturday, August 19, 2006, at 07:06 AM, Brian Rodgers wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Brian Rodgers" <brodg@texas.net>
>
> Whoa, Michel, that Macintosh/Volkswagen analogy is just..... wrong and
> my
> neighbor's dry grass is just as brown as mine this summer!
> Brian
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 2:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: why tailwheel
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>>
>> Guys,
>> I have followed this thread with great interest. Taildragger pilots
>> swear by taildraggers. Macintosh computer users swear by Macintosh.
>> Volkswagen car drivers swear by Volkswagen. .... soooo, the grass
>> isn't
>> greener on the other side, after all - right? :-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michel - a happy taildragger pilot.
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: why tailwheel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirkhull" <kirkhull@sbcglobal.net>
All of that is true but they do look better
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kitfoxmike
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 10:26 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: why tailwheel
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxmike" <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com>
Here is one more thought against tail wheel airplanes. If you get in an
accident with a tail wheel and turn in an NTSB report, guess what, you WILL
get a letter from the friends at the FAA wanting you to take a check ride
in... A TAIL WHEEL AIRPLANE, and guess what, NOBODY will let you use their
plane to do a check ride in, and try to rent one of these aircraft, no joy
on that either. Why is it that all rentable airplanes are tri gear??? Sure
some of you might come up with places that have tail planes to rent, but
it's not something that's available very easily, if at all.
--------
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=55535#55535
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: | (off-topic) Keyboard. WAS: why tailwheel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Aug 19, 2006, at 2:10 PM, Lynn Matteson wrote:
> Jose' - (sorry, my computer won't let me put the accent where it
> belongs...I'm on an eMac...any help, Michel?)
Gosh! Yes, the Mac has all the alternative characters on the keyboard,
unlike the PC, Lynn. But I can't tell you which one because I have a
Norwegian QWERTY keyboard it yours is different. I write many times in
Norwegian, French and even Spanish, and find easily the different
characters particular to those languages but the problem is: The
Matronics list won't accept any thing else that English characters. It
was like that in the past and I guess it is still so. Here is a try:
Norwegian letters: , ,
French characters: , , ,
Spanish characters: , ,
French/Scandinavian/Spanish quotes (guillemets): ,
Typographic quotes: ,
Em-dash:
Degree:
... let see if any of these come through the list.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: why tailwheel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Aug 19, 2006, at 2:26 PM, Lynn Matteson wrote:
> ....and as far as the grass is concerned, who's got time to look at
> the grass when there's flying weather?
Simple: If I open the door and I don't see the grass then I must be
airborne! :-)
Michel
do not archive
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: why tailwheel |
Lynn
You are right. Learning in a nosegear makes you a lazy pilot.The
only reason that flight training schools use trigear aircraft is because they
are easier to land. Thus less accidents, cheaper insurance. There is nothing wrong
with that but if you have the opportunity to take your training in a tailwhheel
aircraft do it. I guaratee you it will make you a better pilot. In a tailwheel
you learn all about rudder control which is so important in cross wind
landings. My son learned in a tail wheel. His instructor would tell him if there's
not at least a 10 mile ph + cross wind at the airport don't bother to come
over. Unfortunatley he lost access to to the tailwhheel at about 40 hrs. He
then flew a 152 trigear. His first comment was that's to easy. It's taking the
fun out of flying. Needless to say when my son got his license he could fly
an airplane in cross winds that would keep your average trigear pilot on the ground
because cross winds of 15ph+ scared them. My
son thinks cross wind and wheel landings is the most fun part of flying and I'm
sure it's all because of his learning in a tailwheel aircraft. At least he thinks
so. If you can get training in a tailwheel, go for it. I don't think you
will ever regret it. Some times the hard way turns out to be the better way!
Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson
Because most pilots don't know how to fly a tailwheel? And because most
pilots learned on trikes (nosegear)? And trikes are easier for people
to learn on, so give 'em the easy way out? Why did we all learn to
first ride a tricycle, then a bicycle? Because it was easier. My
instructor keeps telling me that all I did in flight school was learn
to have lazy feet. What I learned at the local flight center was that
the insurance companies drive the general aircraft industry, and the
records show that accident rates went down when trikes came out, so the
insurance companies dictated that schools shall use trikes, or not be
insured. It's like anything else, the masses rule.
I'm just as rookie pilot with about 60 solo hours in one plane...a
taildragger, so I may know not of which I speak...:)
Lynn
On Friday, August 18, 2006, at 11:26 AM, kitfoxmike wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxmike"
> Why is it that all rentable airplanes are tri gear???
> --------
> kitfoxmike
---------------------------------
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: why tailwheels |
I suppose that is why they use tailwheel planes exclusively in Alaska for flying
into the bush because they flip over easier on rough surfaces.
AMuller589@aol.com wrote: Tail wheels flip over easier on rough or hard
surfaces look at the geometry. Besides being more reliable in getting you home
from a long trip a nose wheel gives better visibillity see the attached. The
only reason tricycle gear was used in early aircraft is that they were unknown
technology. The heavier nosewheel is too much for very marginal engine power
and therefore gives better performance.
---------------------------------
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: (off-topic) Keyboard. WAS: why tailwheel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lyle Persels <lpers@mchsi.com>
Michael,
All of the alternative characters came through just fineon my Mac.
Apparently the Matronics list now supports these.
Lyle
On 08 19, 06, at 7:50 AM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> On Aug 19, 2006, at 2:10 PM, Lynn Matteson wrote:
>> Jose' - (sorry, my computer won't let me put the accent where it
>> belongs...I'm on an eMac...any help, Michel?)
>
> Gosh! Yes, the Mac has all the alternative characters on the
> keyboard, unlike the PC, Lynn. But I can't tell you which one
> because I have a Norwegian QWERTY keyboard it yours is different. I
> write many times in Norwegian, French and even Spanish, and find
> easily the different characters particular to those languages but
> the problem is: The Matronics list won't accept any thing else that
> English characters. It was like that in the past and I guess it is
> still so. Here is a try:
>
> Norwegian letters: , ,
> French characters: , , ,
> Spanish characters: , ,
> French/Scandinavian/Spanish quotes (guillemets): ,
> Typographic quotes: ,
> Em-dash:
> Degree:
> ... let see if any of these come through the list.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: (off-topic) Keyboard. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Aug 19, 2006, at 2:50 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
> ... let see if any of these come through the list.
... hum, it does! Thanks Matronics! You've got over to Unicode? Ok,
next time, I'll try in Cyrillic or ... Chinese characters! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: | why tailwheels--bad day at Oshkosh |
here's one reason
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: why tailwheels--bad day at Oshkosh |
Harold, I'm doubtful that the unfortunate accident you show is result of
the aircraft design. If the picture is meant to prove such a claim I
could post pictures of tricycle gear aircraft in similar situations,
both big and small.
----- Original Message -----
From: AMuller589@aol.com
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 1:10 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: why tailwheels--bad day at Oshkosh
here's one reason
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: why tailwheels--bad day at Oshkosh |
Yeah, nobody EVER has an accident in a tricycle-geared airplane.
Hey A., are you going to send that picture to the list EVERY day?
----- Original Message -----
From: AMuller589@aol.com
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 11:10 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: why tailwheels--bad day at Oshkosh
here's one reason
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
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: Building a new Fox |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Spudnuts,
You have gotten some very good answers from Dan. I have a different answer in
one area.
I took over 2000 hours and five years to build my fox. It is not a minor undertaking.
You have to be
committed! (probably all fox builders should be, but that is getting off the subject!)
I had one year that I could
find very little time to work on it. I really enjoyed it and may do it again,
but for now I am having too much fun
flying.
Randy series 5/7
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 19:33 , Dan Billingsley <dan@azshowersolutions.com> sent:
>Sounds like you have an interest <g> To answer some of your questions...Yes,
they are probably very busy
right now so keep trying them. Many of the other guys that are flying could
probably attest to all the costs
when all is said and done better than I can. I am currently building a IV-912s
tri-gear (which is the 100 horse). I
am doing several modifications which of course takes more time and $. I'm doing
a web build site (when I have
time to build) that youcould take a look at www.azshowersolutions.com/Kitfox1.html How hard are they to
build, what sorts of tools will I need? In my opinion the Kit Fox is an easy build.
It just takes the time to devote
to getting it done. I teach Industrial Tech classes at
> a Jr. High and believe if you have an interest in building stuff and enjoy it...you
will do fine. It would be
difficult to list all the tools here, however, a good assortment of basic hand
tools, a band saw, drill press,
dremmel-type tool, and maybe a modest air compressor. Of course there are a few
specialized tools that make
things easier, but you can get by with many things you probably already have.
Can I order a complete
package from them with everything? I mean, is it like a supersized model airplane
kit?
>I believe John said a few weeks ago that he had a few complete kits ready to go.
John is also a dealer for the
Rotax engine. Yep, just like a big airplane kit. :>) How long to build one?
I think the better question here is
how many hours do they generally take? Every plane is different but I would say
realistically look at between
900 and 1000 hours. I'm sure othersmay debate that. Is it possible to look
at a construction manual just
to get an idea of what the steps are and what it's like to build one? I'm sure
John can help you with that,
however, I could mail or fax you a section of a manual if you would like. What
are all the options they list,
some are obvious, others
> not. Wait for John...he has been developing and adding things for the new company
and many of us don't
know the answer to that.
> Any idea of a ball park cost for building a tri-gear (boo-hiss) with basic VFR
instruments and a 912? If I add
up what I know I want on the order form on their site, the basic firewall back
is about 22K. What is a good
guess to add to that to complete it?
>In my opinion...$50K would probably be real close. However, it could probably
be done for less if you look for
deals and keep it simple. Hope that helps, Dan B Mesa, AZ
>
>
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: Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation |
I'll give a collective "thanks all" here rather than reply separately....so, thanks
for all the suggestions.
The cowl and windshield are permanently mounted already, so I'm stuck with what
I've got. I'm sure I had more clearance as I prepared the cowl and windshield,
but I guess things shifted around a bit during permanent installation.
Thanks for bringing up the issue with oil-tank shortening. I had forgotten about
that. I think my tank was already shortened by SkyStar. Although I bought
the engine elsewhere, I sent the tank and the water pump cover to SkyStar, at
their request. I'm going to take another look at that at see if it can be shortened
any more.
So far I've got about 1 hour on the engine (taxi-testing) and that has produced
minor discoloration on the underside of the cowl. That's what made me worry
that the situation wasn't good for the long term. However, I've heard some encouraging
things here so I think my next step will be to lower the tank another
1/4", add a very very slight bend to the fitting, and then add an asbestos shield.
Actually, the best news that I heard is that nobody has had to modify the
cowl, even though others have very tight clearances also.
Thanks again for all the help.
-Terry
Barry West <barry@pgtc.com> wrote:
Terry, sorry I didn't remember this before but John McBean's email reminded
me of it. I believe Skystar cut the oil tanks in two, removed about an inch
of it's length and welded it back together. If you got your engine elsewhere
this has probably not been done. I have been building a Pulsar from Skystar
and the muffler would not fit because they failed to shorten it. I had to get
it done myself.
Barry West
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Billingsley
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation
This may sound like a drastic measure, however a few guys have done this in the
Phoenix area and it works great... make the oil tank shorter.
Dan B
KF-IV
Barry West <barry@pgtc.com> wrote:
Terry, I also have a Model IV with the 912 ULS engine. I really don't
know if the oil line is in contact with the cowling but I will check it. Anyway,
if it is in contact it has been that way for 5 years and over 400 hours
without a problem or any indication of wear. I will let you know after I check
it.
Barry West
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Hughes
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 5:56 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation
I am in the final stages of installing a 912ULS in a Kitfox IV and I am having
a problem with lack of clearance between the top cowl piece and the top oil
line (the OUT line from the oil tank).
Actually, clearance isn't the right word here -- my oil line is actually lightly
touching the underside of the top cowl piece. I'm using the Skystar-modified
elbow fitting (thanks to John McBean) but that still isn't providing enough
clearance. Although the fitting itself fits under the cowl, once the oil hose
is attached and clamped all clearance between the oil hose and cowl is gone.
Has anyone else had this problem? What did you do?
I see several solutions, but so far I don't like any of them (or can't make them
work). One, try to find a "lower profile" fitting for the OUT oil line. I've
been looking, but so far no joy.
Two, try to bend the existing elbow beyond 90 degrees, which might get the oil
hose low enough to clear the cowl.
Three, try to lower the oil tank. At best, I think I could lower it maybe a 1/4
of an inch, which I don't think would be enough.
Four, cut a hole in the top cowl and
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hi Guys,
While we are still on the tail wheel thing, I would like to say that the
best single item I replaced in 1000 hours in fox's was the tail wheel. I
went to a matco pneumatic wheel last year and can say that is as close to a
easy and straight run out I have ever had. Any one else change things?
John Oakley
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: | [ Noel Loveys ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Email List Photo Shares <pictures@matronics.com>
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Lists: Kitfox-List
Subject: Kitfox III-A W&B, Preflight Report
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/noelloveys@yahoo.ca.08.19.2006/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures@matronics.com
----------------------------------------------------------
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: | why tailwheels--bad day at Oshkosh |
I have seen nose wheels do the same thing. An inattentive pilot is not the
fault of the aircraft or the design.
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
AMuller589@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 11:10 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: why tailwheels--bad day at Oshkosh
here's one reason
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 |
|
>From a design point of view a tail wheel is a much stronger gear (as well as
lighter) that is why they are used for bush planes in Alaska where the
runways are rough. A nose wheel is always the week link. That is why the
first thing you do in a soft field takeoff is get the weight off the nose
wheel. As far as hp the F4U was designed to operate from rough island
strips carved out of jungle and there for had a tail wheel. With around
2000HP the weight of a nose wheel has little to do with it.
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Harold Flynn
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why tailwheels
I suppose that is why they use tailwheel planes exclusively in Alaska for
flying into the bush because they flip over easier on rough surfaces.
AMuller589@aol.com wrote:
Tail wheels flip over easier on rough or hard surfaces look at the geometry.
Besides being more reliable in getting you home from a long trip a nose
wheel gives better visibillity see the attached. The only reason tricycle
gear was used in early aircraft is that they were unknown technology. The
heavier nosewheel is too much for very marginal engine power and therefore
gives better performance.
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 |
|
The only reason tricycle gear was used in early aircraft is that they we
re unknown technology?
WHAT?
The heavier nosewheel is too much for very marginal engine power and the
refore gives better performance???
Do either of these two sentences even make any sense? Both statements ar
e contradictory.
<html><P>The only reason tricycle gear was used in early aircraft is tha
t they were unknown technology?</P>
<P>WHAT?</P>
<P>The heavier nosewheel is too much for very marginal engine power
and therefore gives better performance???</P><PRE>Do either of these tw
o sentences even make any sense? </PRE><PRE>Both statements are contradi
ctory.</PRE>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Colin Durey" <colin@ptclhk.com>
Wow! What a lot of heat this is generating!
Ground-loops, nosewheels snapped off, too heavy for the HP, rough ground...
Flying is too much fun to bother with all this! In the air, it really
doesn't matter if its tailwheel or nosewheel. On takeoff, and landing, the
dominant factor is pilot skill. If you aren't competent on the aircraft
type, don't fly it untill you get the right training/skills. If you can't
handle short/rough strips, don't use them untill you get the skills.
If you like tailwheelers, go fly them! If you like nosewheelers, go fly them!
Anyway, nosewheel - tailwheel, almost all gliders have only one wheel (and
just a teeny little fixed tail wheel or skid (OK, some have a castoring
one), so throw that into your argument. The belly wheel is fwd of the a/c
mass and is subject to the same mass rotation issues as powered a/c. They
often use rough strips. They have no motor, so HP is not a factor. You
have the issue of working to keep your wings level, or at least stable,
and not striking the ground untill you are really slow, so you don't take
one off, or bend it. Nobody gets uptight about there being just one wheel
(except beginners)but, by training, develop the pilot skills to be
proficient at it, and then by maintaining those skills. And there are very
few directional-control type incidents in gliders, either t/o or landing.
At least they don't have prop-strike problems. Ha! Ha!
I'm looking forward to getting my 'Fox flying soon, and would be happy
anyway if it were tailwheel or nosewheel, although I prefer tailwheel. Who
cares? I just like flying!
Regards
Colin Durey
Sydney
+61-418-677073 (M)
+61-2-945466162 (F)
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: | Kitfox in Thailand? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Colin Durey" <colin@ptclhk.com>
Hi Guys!,
I'm about to do a work stint in Thailand for the next couple of months
(there goes the building schedule), and was wondering if anyone knows of
any Kitfoxes flying in Thailand. If there are any there, I'd like to try
and make contact to see if I can both look over their a/c and, if
possible, do a bit of flying.
Regards
Colin Durey
Sydney
+61-418-677073 (M)
+61-2-945466162 (F)
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: Ethanol and wing tanks Ethanol and wing tanks |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Noel sez:
>The first link to chevron was dead so it sent me to their search page.
Apparently, it picked up a "%3E" on the end somehow. This is the correct link:
<http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/aviationfuel/9_ag_specsandtest.shtm>
>The second
>page...<<http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/GArticles/octane.html> >...said
>exactly what I've been saying on this thread. Any fuel that has more
>resistance to detonation than octane will have an octane rating
>higher than 100.
I guess you missed this part:
"HOW DO THEY GET OCTANE NUMBERS ABOVE 100?
"Often it's done by pure extrapolation. A more reliable method,
however, is through the use of so-called performance numbers.
Briefly, these are arrived at by determining the instantaneous mean
effective cylinder pressure (IMEP), using the fuel under test, at the
highest boost that does not cause knocking. This number is then
multiplied by 100 and the resultant is divided by the IMEP at the
highest boost that does not cause knocking on the 100 octane
equivalent fuel.
"Note that, technically, there is no such thing as an octane number
above 100. If you're at a party, avoid saying things like '110 octane
gasoline' because people will get up and walk away from you. You
should say, instead, 'a gasoline with a performance number of 110.'
That will bring the help scurrying over with more champagne."
>I guess to try to cut to the quick of it is that it looks to me that
>you are trying to compare apples to oranges.
I don't know why you think that. I just pointed out the definition
of octane rating versus other performance ratings. I have no agenda
on volatility or flash points.
Mike G.
N728KF
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: Building a new Fox |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>...I'll assume they are just busy.
Probably.
>How hard are they to build, what sorts of tools will I need?
When I bought my original kit they said that if I could assemble a
barbecue grill I could build the plane. They were right. You
probably have a lot of the required tools in your garage already.
>Can I order a complete package...is it like a supersized model airplane kit?
Pretty much, except that when it's done you'll bet your life on this
one's ability to fly. :-)
>How long to build one?
11 years. Assuming you have a job, a family, and a life. Or 6
months if you have none of the above. Most likely somewhere in
between.
>Any idea of a ball park cost for building a tri-gear (boo-hiss) with
>basic VFR instruments and a 912?
$40,000 give or take $10,000. There are a lot of decisions to make
along the way that could alter this figure considerably, but that's
what I'm guessing for my new one.
Mike G.
N728KF
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 in Thailand? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: WBL <aeromer@ix.netcom.com>
Is Michel Gordillo still on the Kitfox list? I believe that he landed in Thailand
on his epic Madrid to Oshkosh flight in 1998 and connected with some Kitfox
builders in South Asia. I have met Kitfoxers in many countries around the world.
A Google search usually comes up with aircraft type clubs, etc. AeroMer
N102KM (tail dragger with amphib floats in the near future)
-----Original Message-----
>From: Colin Durey <colin@ptclhk.com>
>Sent: Aug 19, 2006 4:13 PM
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox in Thailand?
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Colin Durey" <colin@ptclhk.com>
>
>Hi Guys!,
>
> I'm about to do a work stint in Thailand for the next couple of months
>(there goes the building schedule), and was wondering if anyone knows of
>any Kitfoxes flying in Thailand. If there are any there, I'd like to try
>and make contact to see if I can both look over their a/c and, if
>possible, do a bit of flying.
>
>
>Regards
>
>Colin Durey
>Sydney
>+61-418-677073 (M)
>+61-2-945466162 (F)
>
>
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: (off-topic) Keyboard. WAS: why tailwheel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Lynn: Its ok with me to replace Jos with Jose.
Michel: your Macintosh is amazing...like a TD...
>
> On Aug 19, 2006, at 2:10 PM, Lynn Matteson wrote:
> > Jose' - (sorry, my computer won't let me put the
> accent where it
> > belongs...I'm on an eMac...any help, Michel?)
>
> Gosh! Yes, the Mac has all the alternative
> characters on the keyboard,
> unlike the PC, Lynn. But I can't tell you which one
> because I have a
> Norwegian QWERTY keyboard it yours is different. I
> write many times in
> Norwegian, French and even Spanish, and find easily
> the different
> characters particular to those languages but the
> problem is: The
> Matronics list won't accept any thing else that
> English characters. It
> was like that in the past and I guess it is still
> so. Here is a try:
>
> Norwegian letters: , ,
> French characters: , , ,
> Spanish characters: , ,
> French/Scandinavian/Spanish quotes (guillemets):
> ,
> Typographic quotes: ,
> Em-dash:
> Degree:
> ... let see if any of these come through the list.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
__________________________________________________
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Michigan Kitfoxers |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "casey flynn" <buddgravey@hotmail.com>
>From: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Michigan Kitfoxers
>Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:13:28 -0400
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
>Deke-
> I just sent you everything I know about myself, and the plane. : )
>
>Lynn
>
>On Wednesday, August 16, 2006, at 10:38 AM, Fox5flyer wrote:
>
>>Hey folks. I have the list of Michigan Kitfoxers compiled, but I still
>>need a little bit of info from those listed below.
>>Anybody else who would like to be added to the list, please add your name
>>and information to this message and reply to me. This isn't necessarily
>>limited to Michigan residents. Nearby is fine too.
>>
>>Information needed (everything is optional)
>>name Richard Lidgard
>> phone number- 574-586-3482
>> address -72621 willow trail, Walkerton, In. 46574
>> email address- buddgravey@hotmail.com
>> type aircraft and info regarding state of completion, flying, hours,
>>engine, prop, etc- kitfox model IV-1200 have about 350hrs on airframe 100
>>on rebuilt subaru EA-81 It is swinging a warp drive ground adjustable
>>prop. Just wish I could fly more too many arms in the fire. Maybe later
>>this fall with any luck at all. anything else you'd like to add
>>
>>John Pery (Kansas)
>>
>>Fred Shiple
>>
>>
>>
>> Toledo Ohio
>>
>>Lynn Matteson
>>
>>As I stated previously, none of this information will be used for any
>>nefarious purposes to include, advertising, marketing, list sales, spam of
>>any kind, or anything that I wouldn't want my own name to be used for.
>>Once it'scomplete I'll send it out to the people who are on the list so
>>that we all know who we are, where we are, and can, if needed, have our
>>collective selves nearby to help with any building, flying, maintenance
>>issues that might arise. Maybe we can even organize some sort offlight
>>somewhere.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Deke Morisse
>>Mikado (NE near Alpena) MI
>>S5
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: | Re: Potential Customer |
I am in Bettendorf Iowa. Right on the Mississippi river. I have a flying
model IV but I'd be glad to give him a Kitfox tour.
Contact me at _kaufjm@aol.com_ (mailto:kaufjm@aol.com)
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! --
|