---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 10/05/06: 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 04:18 AM - Re: Michigan Kitfoxers...or Mich. pilots in general (Fox5flyer) 2. 05:32 AM - Ref carb sockets (Larry Martin) 3. 09:37 AM - Re: KitFox Rudder Authority (Michael Gibbs) 4. 10:46 AM - Re: Re: KitFox Rudder Authority (kerrjohna@comcast.net) 5. 11:49 AM - Re: Re: KitFox Rudder Authority (John Oakley) 6. 12:07 PM - Re: Re: KitFox Rudder Authority (Aerobatics@aol.com) 7. 12:40 PM - Re: KitFox Rudder Authority (Michel Verheughe) 8. 12:42 PM - Re: Re: KitFox Rudder Authority (Michel Verheughe) 9. 01:20 PM - Sport Pilot: one step closer (Lynn Matteson) 10. 02:01 PM - Re: Sport Pilot: one step closer (Jose M. Toro) 11. 02:20 PM - Re: Sport Pilot: one step closer (Michel Verheughe) 12. 02:56 PM - Re: Sport Pilot: one step closer (Lowell Fitt) 13. 03:22 PM - Re: Re: Fuel System Rotax 912UL(to Howard) (Randy Daughenbaugh) 14. 03:22 PM - Re: Fuel System Rotax 912UL (Randy Daughenbaugh) 15. 05:48 PM - Re: Sport Pilot: one step closer (Noel Loveys) 16. 06:36 PM - Re: Re: KitFox Rudder Authority (John Anderson) 17. 07:40 PM - Re: Sport Pilot: one step closer (Rex) 18. 08:28 PM - Re: Sport Pilot: one step closer (Richard Rabbers) 19. 08:55 PM - Re: NSI Manuals and other Materials (A Smith) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:18:14 AM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Michigan Kitfoxers...or Mich. pilots in general --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" Thanks Lynn. I recall talking to him a few times while he picked my brain about local grass strips around here. I think what he's putting together is an excellent tool for all of us, especially when we're looking around for a good place to go to breakfast. Often the municipal airport is 3 miles or more from town and with this directory if there are any small farm strips around within walking distance of an eatery, we'll know about them. Many other more doors open up for us, especially for emergency landing areas. Thanks for letting us know. Deke waiting with my $20 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Matteson" Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:26 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Michigan Kitfoxers...or Mich. pilots in general > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson > > I just returned from our Chapter 304 EAA meeting, and a guest speaker > announced that he has put together a list of all private airstrips in > the State of Michigan. It should be ready for publication in about a > month. He has been compiling it for over two years. He is meeting with > his lawyer to iron out all the legal aspects of such a publication. It > will sell for $20. I told him to put me on the list. He said that he > contacted hundreds of strip owners, and they were very willing to be > added to his list, with very few exceptions. He said that the current > Michigan Airport Directory lists about 200+ airports, and his list will > provide about 500+ private landing strips. He even had yours, Deke. > Hell, he's even got Howland Field on there! He also said that around > Napoleon and Brooklyn there are 20-some strips....and added "I don't > know how you guys keep from running into one another." > > When it's done, the list will show nearest town, owners name and phone > number, lat and long, length of runway(s), slope (if any), turf or > paved, etc. I'll let you all know when he is ready to sell the > directory. > > > Lynn > Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200 > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:32:34 AM PST US From: "Larry Martin" Subject: Kitfox-List: Ref carb sockets It looked like the page I sent arrive to the list blank, so here is the link for the American made carb sockets. http://www.geocities.com/chinooktips/ROTAX.html ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 09:37:48 AM PST US From: Michael Gibbs Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: KitFox Rudder Authority --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs I did not experience the type of flight performance you did in my Model IV-1200. Later Model IVs and the Series 5-7 Kitfoxes have a larger vertical stabilizer and rudder than the earlier models do, which gives them more yaw stability. While certainly requiring more attention than my Piper Arrow, my Model IV handled turbulent summer air without a lot of effort on my part. I will admit, however, that it gets easier with time, which suggests that your feet develop an "auto pilot" operation of their own. :-) Mike G. N728KF ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 10:46:41 AM PST US From: kerrjohna@comcast.net Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: KitFox Rudder Authority It has been interesting to follow this thread as contributors speak of the lateral stability and rudder authority. They are different things and might be considered counter to one another: the more stable an aircraft is laterally the more rudder authority is required to counter that stability. The balance of the two is part of design compromise process and is not unique to this design. We can all cite designs that have evolved over time to accomodate increased power and other changes. One such evolution is the very popular RV series that saw a signicant increase in veritical stabilizer area and similarly an increase in rudder size when the design of the RV6 was deemed to be improvable ala the RV8 and RV9. The fuselage was also lengthened to further improve stability. In the past few months I have had the opportunity to fly 2 certified airplanes and found them HARD to fly because they were so stable as to need forceful control input to get them to change direction. Flying them was much more tiring than the light pressure needed to control my 'Fox or my RV9. I guess I could talk with a similar jaundiced attitude toward the certified transition as some have exhibited toward their transition to lighter more responsive designs. I have never flown a fully aerobatic aircraft, but I suspect that the feel is different for them as well. I have heard that aerobatic craft don't make particularly good cross country flyers. I guess our reaction is based on the paradigm we are each in. John Kerr -------------- Original message -------------- From: Michael Gibbs > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs > > I did not experience the type of flight performance you did in my > Model IV-1200. Later Model IVs and the Series 5-7 Kitfoxes have a > larger vertical stabilizer and rudder than the earlier models do, > which gives them more yaw stability. > > While certainly requiring more attention than my Piper Arrow, my > Model IV handled turbulent summer air without a lot of effort on my > part. I will admit, however, that it gets easier with time, which > suggests that your feet develop an "auto pilot" operation of their > own. :-) > > Mike G. > N728KF > > > >
It has been interesting to follow this thread as contributors speak of the lateral stability and rudder authority.  They are different things and might be considered counter to one another: the more stable an aircraft is laterally the more rudder authority is required to counter that stability.  The balance of the two is part of design compromise process and is not unique to this design. We can all cite designs that have evolved over time to accomodate increased power and other changes.
 
One such evolution is the very popular RV series that saw a signicant increase in veritical stabilizer area and similarly an increase in rudder size when the design of the RV6 was deemed to be improvable ala the RV8 and RV9.  The fuselage was also lengthened to further improve stability.
 
In the past few months I have had the opportunity to fly 2 certified airplanes and found them HARD to fly because they were so stable as to need forceful control input to get them to change direction.  Flying them was much more tiring than the light pressure needed to control my 'Fox or my RV9.
 
I guess I could talk with a similar jaundiced attitude toward the certified transition as some have exhibited toward their transition to lighter more responsive designs.  I have never flown a fully aerobatic aircraft, but I suspect that the feel is different for them as well.  I have heard that aerobatic craft don't make particularly good cross country flyers.  I guess our reaction is based on the paradigm we are each in.
 
John Kerr
 
=====
&g
________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 11:49:23 AM PST US From: "John Oakley" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: KitFox Rudder Authority dEar John, Pleze noot use such Big wOrds on us, Other than that you made a good point! Well said. John Oakley _____ From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kerrjohna@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 11:44 AM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: KitFox Rudder Authority It has been interesting to follow this thread as contributors speak of the lateral stability and rudder authority. They are different things and might be considered counter to one another: the more stable an aircraft is laterally the more rudder authority is required to counter that stability. The balance of the two is part of design compromise process and is not unique to this design. We can all cite designs that have evolved over time to accomodate increased power and other changes. One such evolution is the very popular RV series that saw a signicant increase in veritical stabilizer area and similarly an increase in rudder size when the design of the RV6 was deemed to be improvable ala the RV8 and RV9. The fuselage was also lengthened to further improve stability. In the past few months I have had the opportunity to fly 2 certified airplanes and found them HARD to fly because they were so stable as to need forceful control input to get them to change direction. Flying them was much more tiring than the light pressure needed to control my 'Fox or my RV9. I guess I could talk with a similar jaundiced attitude toward the certified transition as some have exhibited toward their transition to lighter more responsive designs. I have never flown a fully aerobatic aircraft, but I suspect that the feel is different for them as well. I have heard that aerobatic craft don't make particularly good cross country flyers. I guess our reaction is based on the paradigm we are each in. John Kerr ====== &g ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 12:07:40 PM PST US From: Aerobatics@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: KitFox Rudder Authority In a message dated 10/5/2006 12:51:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time, kerrjohna@comcast.net writes: It has been interesting to follow this thread as contributors speak of the lateral stability and rudder authority. They are different things and might be considered counter to one another: the more stable an aircraft is laterally the more rudder authority is required to counter that stability. The balance of the two is part of design compromise process and is not unique to this design. We can all cite designs that have evolved over time to accomodate increased power and other changes. Agreed........ an airplane design IS full of compromises... I have a bit of time in some aerobatic planes Pitts S2B was amazing not inherently stable, but not unstable, just very responsive, I Loved it. Light controls, point it there, it stays... a neutral set up. I have a bit of time in a RV4 and found very much the same thing... great airplane... But so is the KF in what it does...:-) Dave KF2 ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 12:40:43 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KitFox Rudder Authority --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe On Oct 4, 2006, at 8:15 PM, Fox5flyer wrote: > Just let it wiggle Michel. Yes, I guess I should, Deke. It's just that, I need to fly more to get the feel of it. On Oct 4, 2006, at 9:21 PM, Guy Buchanan wrote: > As a lifelong sailor I only mind the motion when I bounce my head off > the skylight! :'( I understand, Guy. But as Rod Machado puts it: turbulence are like waves at sea. The only difference is that you don't see them ... and that's what horror movies are made of! :-) Cheers, Michel do not archive ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 12:42:56 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: KitFox Rudder Authority --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe On Oct 5, 2006, at 8:52 PM, John Oakley wrote: > Pleze noot use such Big wOrds on us, Not a problem for me! You see, fancy words in English are mostly from French origin so ... vive la diffrence! ... Okay, I'll shut up! :-) Cheers, Michel do not archive ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 01:20:59 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot: one step closer From: Lynn Matteson --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson I just got my recommendation today from my instructor to take the checkride next week. We went up and I did all the maneuvers asked, all the various takeoffs and landings, and when he said "take me home" I thought I had flunked the pre-checkride checkride....I hadn't. When he got out he said "congrats, you just did your recommendation ride in 20-30 mph winds" yeeehawwwwwww!! Lynn Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200 ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 02:01:27 PM PST US From: "Jose M. Toro" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot: one step closer --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" Congratulations Lynn! Will be waiting next week for feedback from the newest Sport Pilot in the list. Jose --- Lynn Matteson wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson > > > I just got my recommendation today from my > instructor to take the > checkride next week. We went up and I did all the > maneuvers asked, all > the various takeoffs and landings, and when he said > "take me home" I > thought I had flunked the pre-checkride > checkride....I hadn't. When he > got out he said "congrats, you just did your > recommendation ride in > 20-30 mph winds" yeeehawwwwwww!! > > Lynn > Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200 > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List > > Web Forums! > > > Admin. > > > > > __________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 02:20:38 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot: one step closer --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe On Oct 5, 2006, at 10:22 PM, Lynn Matteson wrote: > When he got out he said "congrats, you just did your recommendation > ride in 20-30 mph winds" yeeehawwwwwww!! Congrats, cowboy! :-) Now, to enlighten the ignorance of an European Kitfoxer, ... what is a "recommendation check-ride?" Cheers, Michel do not archive ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 02:56:29 PM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot: one step closer --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" Thanks for the Post, Lynn. It was a long time ago, but it brought to mind my anticipation for the check ride. Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Matteson" Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 1:22 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot: one step closer > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson > > I just got my recommendation today from my instructor to take the > checkride next week. We went up and I did all the maneuvers asked, all the > various takeoffs and landings, and when he said "take me home" I thought I > had flunked the pre-checkride checkride....I hadn't. When he got out he > said "congrats, you just did your recommendation ride in 20-30 mph winds" > yeeehawwwwwww!! > > Lynn > Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200 > > > ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 03:22:23 PM PST US From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Fuel System Rotax 912UL(to Howard) --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Rotating the wrong way (more than about half a prop turn) will pump the oil backwards into the oil tank, while drawing air from the crankcase into the oil pump. This causes the oil pump to lose prime. Then it is possible for the engine to run without oil pressure which can damage the engine. There are procedures that Rotax published to prime the oil pump every time you change the oil. Randy . -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dcsfoto Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 7:06 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Fuel System Rotax 912UL(to Howard) --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dcsfoto" one reason to rotate prop is to pressure crankcase and force oil into the tank. rotate in wrong direction it will draw oil into crankcase that is what I was told by Rotax Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62977#62977 ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 03:22:25 PM PST US From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel System Rotax 912UL Howard, Do you have a "choke"? It doesn't work unless the throttle is closed all the way. Could that be the problem? It isn't really a choke, but rather an en-richer circuit. Randy . _____ From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Howard Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 6:57 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel System Rotax 912UL I am a new Kitfox owner, and need some advice. I have the wings off my Fox for recovering, and since the engine hasn't been started in over a year, I deceided to start it before I put on the wings...The header tank was about 1/2 full, so I felt there was plenty of gas to start up and see how it was running. I could not get the engine to fire...Can I start the engine with the wings off, and the total fuel system not on line, just using the header tank? What do you think I am doing wrong, and better yet, you might give me a short step by step check list. Thanks so much for your time in this matter. Safe flying. Howard Ligon ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 05:48:40 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot: one step closer --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" Congratulations Lynn.... I've flown in 30+ winds and there is no way I'd want to do a test in those conditions! Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of > Lynn Matteson > Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 5:52 PM > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot: one step closer > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson > > I just got my recommendation today from my instructor to take the > checkride next week. We went up and I did all the maneuvers > asked, all > the various takeoffs and landings, and when he said "take me home" I > thought I had flunked the pre-checkride checkride....I > hadn't. When he > got out he said "congrats, you just did your recommendation ride in > 20-30 mph winds" yeeehawwwwwww!! > > Lynn > Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200 > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 06:36:01 PM PST US From: "John Anderson" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: KitFox Rudder Authority --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" Agreed........ an airplane design IS full of compromises... Except de Haviland aircraft......that old gent had a secret when it came to control and stability... From: Aerobatics@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: KitFox Rudder Authority In a message dated 10/5/2006 12:51:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time, kerrjohna@comcast.net writes: It has been interesting to follow this thread as contributors speak of the lateral stability and rudder authority. They are different things and might be considered counter to one another: the more stable an aircraft is laterally the more rudder authority is required to counter that stability. The balance of the two is part of design compromise process and is not unique to this design. We can all cite designs that have evolved over time to accomodate increased power and other changes. Agreed........ an airplane design IS full of compromises... I have a bit of time in some aerobatic planes Pitts S2B was amazing not inherently stable, but not unstable, just very responsive, I Loved it. Light controls, point it there, it stays... a neutral set up. I have a bit of time in a RV4 and found very much the same thing... great airplane... But so is the KF in what it does...:-) Dave KF2 _________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 07:40:13 PM PST US From: Rex Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot: one step closer --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Rex Hi Michel Since no one has answered yet, I'll offer my explanation. When an instructor thinks you are ready and should be able to pass an actual Check-Ride he will simulate giving the check ride. If you do well he will endorse your log book as recommended for that Pilot test. The endorsement is written to include the word "recommended" or something like that. Thus the term "recommendation ride". There may be errors in my answer as I haven't read the latest FAR's. Rex Colorado Michel Verheughe wrote: > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > > On Oct 5, 2006, at 10:22 PM, Lynn Matteson wrote: > >> When he got out he said "congrats, you just did your recommendation >> ride in 20-30 mph winds" yeeehawwwwwww!! > > > Congrats, cowboy! :-) > Now, to enlighten the ignorance of an European Kitfoxer, ... what is a > "recommendation check-ride?" > > Cheers, > Michel > > do not archive > > -- Karla and Rex Hefferan Gypsy Bee Innkeepers 719-651-5198 or 719-651-9192 ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 08:28:00 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Sport Pilot: one step closer From: "Richard Rabbers" --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard Rabbers" > Lynn >yeeehawwwwwww!! Congratulations Lynn! do not archive -------- Richard in SW Michigan Model 1 / 618 - full-lotus floats (restoration) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=66121#66121 ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 08:55:51 PM PST US From: "A Smith" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: NSI Manuals and other Materials --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "A Smith" You should have a dyno run on that engine. Looks like a spread sheet. Comes with teh engine. That will give you some numbers to use. As far as the manuals, that sounds fairly complete. The expierence here in the group will probably be the best manual you have. Here are just a few for starters. It will be heavy. Put your battery in the tail and sweep the wings. It will not cool well without some effort. An oil cooler is a must. Two fuel pumps, think about it very seriously. And remember to keep it light. Drill out your primer so it can get fuel on the first fire up of the day. I vented my gearbox. No more seal problems. Fasten the muffler where it exits the cowl back to the crossover pipe or it will break from vibration. It is an easy fix. I would look over everyones install before even starting. Did I mention to keep it light. It is a great setup with a great sound. Albert 5TD NSI-T/CAP140