Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:01 AM - Re: 3 Pointers water wheel skiing (dave)
2. 04:26 AM - Re: 3 Pointers (Bradley M Webb)
3. 07:49 AM - Re: Sight Tube Printout (Michael Gibbs)
4. 08:16 AM - Ground run (luigi)
5. 08:25 AM - GTA Prop (Joel)
6. 09:17 AM - Re: Fuse on the way (Tony Partain)
7. 09:24 AM - Re: GTA Prop (Noel Loveys)
8. 02:05 PM - Re: OFF-TOPIC: ATC question/ Add Language (Michel Verheughe)
9. 02:36 PM - Re: 3 Pointers water wheel skiing (kirk hull)
10. 02:44 PM - radio problem (kirk hull)
11. 02:53 PM - Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (84KF)
12. 03:20 PM - Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (Timothy Colman)
13. 03:48 PM - Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (84KF)
14. 03:55 PM - Re: radio problem (Ted Palamarek)
15. 04:18 PM - Re: radio problem (kurt schrader)
16. 04:25 PM - Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (Grant Bright)
17. 04:26 PM - Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (Guy Buchanan)
18. 04:45 PM - Re: radio problem (Dan Billingsley)
19. 05:07 PM - Re: radio problem (dave)
20. 05:10 PM - Re: radio problem (dave)
21. 05:10 PM - Re: 3 Pointers water wheel skiing (dave)
22. 05:16 PM - Still Learning (Guy Buchanan)
23. 06:10 PM - Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (84KF)
24. 06:52 PM - Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (wingnut)
25. 06:53 PM - Re: Still Learning (Jim Crowder)
26. 06:58 PM - Need a floating ball for fuel quantity sight tube (Joe & Jan Connell)
27. 07:04 PM - Re: Need a floating ball for fuel quantity sight tube (Jim Crowder)
28. 07:35 PM - Matronics Email List Fund Raiser - November! (Matt Dralle)
29. 07:57 PM - Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (84KF)
30. 08:15 PM - Re: Still Learning (Guy Buchanan)
31. 08:15 PM - Re: Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (Guy Buchanan)
32. 08:15 PM - Re: Need a floating ball for fuel quantity sight tube (Guy Buchanan)
33. 08:46 PM - Re: Need a floating ball for fuel quantity sight tube (Lowell Fitt)
34. 08:48 PM - Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (84KF)
35. 09:11 PM - Re: Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (Lowell Fitt)
36. 09:54 PM - Re: Ground run (ron schick)
37. 10:17 PM - Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (ron schick)
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: 3 Pointers water wheel skiing |
Hi,
Here is 4 Harvards doing it
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=521173
and a Video here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeeAI1wTMiA&search=T6
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: kirk hull
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 10:58 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 3 Pointers water wheel skiing
I have seen a photo of it but cant seem to find it in my collection.
It must be one of the things I lost in my last hd crash. I think it
came in a power point with a lot of other photos. You might try
airliners.net.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Malcolmbru@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 8:29 PM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 3 Pointers water wheel skiing
has any one seen the video of the BI wings in formation wheel skiing
on water
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 |
|
Transitioning from a 172 to the 'fox is a trial and error affair. I did it,
and had to get used to feeling like my butt was gonna scrap the ground. The
only "real" way to overcome it is to practice, practice, PRACTICE!
Don't forget to transition your visual focus to the far end of the runway as
you flare. And try to pay close attention to your peripheral vision cues.
With practice, you can get pretty good at judging the flare height. You just
have to re-cage your MK1 eyeball. Airspeed management is the key to a smooth
arrival. If you're too fast, the stick will require a more deft touch to
keep from rising, and if too slow, the bottom will fall out faster. The 'fox
will decelerate quickly in the flare, more so than the spam cans, but you
just get used to it. After a bit of thinking, I found a procedure that
worked for me, and my landings got much better. I spend quite a bit of time
in the pattern, 'cuz I find it fun in the Kitfox.
Try not to move the nose up or down in the flare. Put it in the correct
position on the horizon, and hold it there. Don't push the nose down if it
balloons, and don't raise it too much to soften a high decent rate. Just
hold it there, and use pressure on the stick, not movement. Sometimes, a
little (!) power will arrest the decent rate to an acceptable level. But you
increase the landing distance by doing so.
With flaps, my 2 will not quite get the tail down for a 3 point. So I
usually leave up for most landings, especially in a crosswind. I use them to
steepen my approach if high, then bring them back up over the fence. I can
still land very short with them up. I don't find the 'fox flaps particularly
useful, but YMMV on that.
The gap seals helped some, and I like them. But I didn't notice a
"night-and-day" difference with them. The cost to benefit ratio is great for
the gap seals (2.99 and 30 minutes), so go for it. It can't hurt.
Hoping that helps,
Bradley
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
GENTRYLL@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 3 Pointers
Thanks Rex,
I see from your writing some things I am doing differently. First I am
coming in at just over 50 mph. Second, I am using no flaps. With this
combination, it doesn't take much to make it stall. I don't think elevator
authority is the problem as when I pull it back it drops. I think I am just
flaring too high as I am used to being in a bigger, taller plane. I like
the idea another fellow sent in of flying just above the runway and down the
center until my brain adjust for where bottom really is.
Thanks for the help.
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: Sight Tube Printout |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Jim sez:
>There was a request...for the printed strip to be placed behind the
>Kitfox sight tube used to indicate fuel level.
I think Murle Williams offers fuel placards on his web site:
<http://murlewilliamsaviation.com>
Mike G.
N728KF
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "luigi" <luigi316@libero.it>
Hi All,
I have just completed the overhaul of my Kitfox II and made first ground run. I
have a 582 grey head and a new Ivoprop 68". I set the pitch for 6200 static and
putting a dynamometer between the airplane and the truck i have a thrust of
290 lbs. Is this a good value ? I also a doubt on the rpm, i have a change of
200 rpm more in the reading when i switch off the battery. I don't understand
the reason as the istrument is connected directly to the engine and ground. I
think that before the first flight it'll be better to install a tiny tach.
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Joel" <foxfloatflyer@hotmail.com>
Does anyone have experience with the in-flight adjustable pitch prop from GSC,
which they call the GTA? If so, with what engine and what has been your experience.
Thanks,
--------
Joel Mapes Kitfox 5 912 ULS Aerocomp amphibs
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71553#71553
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: Fuse on the way |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tony Partain" <tpartain@bendcable.com>
Thanks to all who have responed on and off the list. I am looking forward to building
a Kitfox!
--------
Tony Partain
Partain Transport Company
Bend Oregon
http://www.vansairforce.net/Graphics/PartainTruckingCo.htm
RV7 IO360 CS 116WT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71559#71559
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
There is a guy on the Avid group site that has been using the GSC with the
two nickel edge warp blades for about a year. He had a video clip of a 4
sec take off on skis. Every now and again I contact him just to see how the
prop is working and from the sound of it it's excellent. Too heavy for a
"B" box and needs the hole in the prop shaft of the "C" &"E" boxes.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Joel
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:54 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: GTA Prop
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Joel" <foxfloatflyer@hotmail.com>
>
> Does anyone have experience with the in-flight adjustable
> pitch prop from GSC, which they call the GTA? If so, with
> what engine and what has been your experience.
> Thanks,
>
> --------
> Joel Mapes Kitfox 5 912 ULS Aerocomp amphibs
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71553#71553
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: OFF-TOPIC: ATC question/ Add Language |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Nov 1, 2006, at 2:00 AM, Ceashman@aol.com wrote:
> When up there alone, have you ever said out loud to yourself
> "bugger... how could I have said that." Have you ever laughed out loud
> to yourself!
Me? Pffff ... Never! ... ha, ha, ha! I know that the book says: Think
before you push the PTT button but ... I seldom do that. :-)
On Nov 1, 2006, at 5:08 AM, Noel Loveys wrote:
> AM radio ( that's us) uses a carrier ( 50% of the power out put ) and
> two
> information carrying sidebands.
Hum, you can't hide the fact that you're a ham, Noel! :-)
You're right about AM and listening to two planes, though. Maritime VHF
is FM and I remember the day an idiot left his handset pressed on
something, on the bridge, and the channel 16 was jammed for more than
an hour with background noise and music.
73 de LA0HA, Michel
do not archive
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: | 3 Pointers water wheel skiing |
Go to google under "Water skiing airplanes!"
It's there at the top!
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Malcolmbru@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 3 Pointers water wheel skiing
has any one seen the video of the BI wings in formation wheel skiing on
water
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 |
|
I have a strange radio problem. I am using an Icom A4 it works great out of
the airplane but will only transmit for about 5 sec when it is within 6
inches of any metal part of the airplane.
It use to work fine in the plane. Many changes have been made to the plane
but I have no idea what is causing the problem. Any Ideas?
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: | Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
Most published information is not accurate with regards to Sport pilot privileges
and aircraft weight limits. The only official weight limit, as found in FAR
1.1 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS is (1) Maximum Takeoff Weight. But one must
not there. Maximum Takeoff Weight is then defined, precisely and is on record,
by the FAA.
This one simple paragraph, that is overlooked by both professional writers
and FAA representatives is the key to proper applicability of Sport pilot privileges
and aircraft eligibility. This is the definition of Maximum Takeoff
Weight as applied to LSASport Pilot issues.
Paragraph (1) Maximum certificated takeoff weight
Some commenters stated that lacking a definition of maximum takeoff weight, aircraft
with fairly high performance
characteristics could meet the definition of light-sport aircraft by limiting the
approved weight and payload of the airplane. The FAA
considers this a valid concern and has provided some additional constraints on
the weight as detailed below. The maximum weight of
a light-sport aircraft is the sum of:
(1) Aircraft empty weight;
(2) Weight of the passenger for each seat installed;
(3) Baggage allowance for each passenger; and
(4) Full fuel, including a minimum of the half-hour fuel reserve required for day
visual flight rules in 91.151 (a)(1).
As you know, the definition of light sport aircraft is found in FAR 1.1
Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift
that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:
(1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than
(i) 660 pounds (300 kilograms) for lighter-than-air aircraft;
(ii) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on water;
or
(iii) 1,430 pounds (650 kilograms) for an aircraft intended for operation on water.
maximum takeoff weight defined in final
The FAA realized it needed to and did, include the definition of maximum takeoff
weight as it applies to the LSA definition in 1.1 and it is found on page 44793
of
Federal Register
Certification of Aircraft and Airman for the Operation of Light-Sport aircraft;
Final Rule. Dated July 27, 2004
It says, verbatim,
Some commentators stated that lacking a definition of maximum take off weight,
aircraft with fairly high performance characteristics could meet the definition
of light-sport aircraft by limiting the approved weight and payload of the
airplane. The FAA considers this a valid concern and has provided some additional
constraints on the weight as detailed below. The maximum weight of a light-sport
aircraft is the sum of :
(1) Aircraft empty weight;
(2) Weight of the passenger for each seat installed;
(3) Baggage allowance for each passenger; and
(4) Full fuel, including a minimum of the half hour fuel reserve required for day
visual flight rules in FAR 91.151(a)(1)
This definitively states, and presents, the definition of maximum takeoff weight
as a formula, to be applied in determining the weight parameter in FAR 1.1,
and is applicably to any and all aircraft, other than a helicopter or
powered-lift, to determine what may be considered a light sport eligible aircraft,
and no other definition, or use of the term maximum weight as found in the
F.A.Rs or elsewhere may be substituted at will. Not Gross weight, Maximum Gross
weight, Maximum gross takeoff weight, or any of the other terms that are
tossed around.
This weight, maximum takeoff weight, is defined specifically by the FAA for LSA
issues, as the sum of : (1), (2), (3), and (4),
Example:
A Kitfox Series 5, with an empty weight of 710 lbs (1) with both seats filled (2),
and, full fuel tanks (3), still leaves 63 pounds of for baggage allowance
as required by (4)
Seats filled 2 x 180 = 360 lbs
Full tanks (inc header) 27 gal. x 6 lbs = 162 lbs
Empty weight as on current W&B = 710 lbs.
-----------------------
1232
lbs
Baggage on board 25 lbs
--------------------
1257
lbs as weighed and loaded
Weight at time of takeoff is 63 lbs LESS THAN 1320 lbs.
Note: In this loading configuration the aircraft is well within its demonstrated
and published flight envelope
AND, the aircraft has not been altered or modified since it was issued its airworthiness
certificate, in order to meet the definition.
Example: The fuel capacity has not been modified to lower the weight of (4) full
fuel. as a result removing large fuel tanks and installing smaller fuel tanks.
Therefore, it has met the condition, since its original certification, has continued
to meet the following:
1) A maximum takeoff weight (add (1), (2), (3), and (4) of not more than (1320lbs
max. land use) and it has been able to do so continuously since the airworthiness
certificate was issued.
Conclusion
One pilot may, under Sport pilot privileges, operate the aircraft at a maximum
takeoff weight up to 1320 lbs, another pilot flying under private pilot privileges,
up to the design weight, in this case 1400 lbs. Same aircraft.
A Kitfox Series 7 has a design weight of up to 1550 lbs, yet if the sum of
(1),(2), (3), and (4) is not greater then maximum takeoff weight of 1320 lbs as
defined, and the other parameters are met, it too may be operated by a pilot
flying under Sport Pilot privileges.
One must read and understand the Final Rule and apply it correctly to the regulation
it governs.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71595#71595
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: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Timothy Colman <tpcolman@yahoo.com>
I'm a lurker here. Your note dovetails exactly with a question I have been trying
to get an answer to, namely if a Kitfox is rated at 1400 lbs. can it be operrated
under the Sport Pilot rules. This question is important because if the
answer is yes there is a Kitfox on Barnstormers I want to buy, and right away.
So, from reading your note, say a PP operates a Kitfox 5 at a max weight of 1400
lbs., then he sells that plane. Can a SP operate the same airplane at a max
weight of 1320 and be legal?
Thanks,
Tim Colman
----- Original Message ----
From: 84KF <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 4:53:02 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
Most published information is not accurate with regards to Sport pilot privileges
and aircraft weight limits. The only official weight limit, as found in FAR
1.1 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS is (1) Maximum Takeoff Weight . But one
must not there. Maximum Takeoff Weight is then defined, precisely and is on record,
by the FAA.
This one simple paragraph, that is overlooked by both professional writers
and FAA representatives is the key to proper applicability of Sport pilot privileges
and aircraft eligibility. This is the definition of Maximum Takeoff
Weight as applied to LSASport Pilot issues.
Paragraph (1) Maximum certificated takeoff weight
Some commenters stated that lacking a definition of maximum takeoff weight, aircraft
with fairly high performance
characteristics could meet the definition of light-sport aircraft by limiting the
approved weight and payload of the airplane. The FAA
considers this a valid concern and has provided some additional constraints on
the weight as detailed below. The maximum weight of
a light-sport aircraft is the sum of:
(1) Aircraft empty weight;
(2) Weight of the passenger for each seat installed;
(3) Baggage allowance for each passenger; and
(4) Full fuel, including a minimum of the half-hour fuel reserve required for day
visual flight rules in 91.151 (a)(1).
As you know, the definition of light sport aircraft is found in FAR 1.1
Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift
that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:
(1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than
(i) 660 pounds (300 kilograms) for lighter-than-air aircraft;
(ii) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on water;
or
(iii) 1,430 pounds (650 kilograms) for an aircraft intended for operation on water.
maximum takeoff weight defined in final
The FAA realized it needed to and did, include the definition of maximum takeoff
weight as it applies to the LSA definition in 1.1 and it is found on page 44793
of
Federal Register
Certification of Aircraft and Airman for the Operation of Light-Sport aircraft;
Final Rule. Dated July 27, 2004
It says, verbatim,
Some commentators stated that lacking a definition of maximum take off weight,
aircraft with fairly high performance characteristics could meet the definition
of light-sport aircraft by limiting the approved weight and payload of the
airplane. The FAA considers this a valid concern and has provided some additional
constraints on the weight as detailed below. The maximum weight of a light-sport
aircraft is the sum of :
(1) Aircraft empty weight;
(2) Weight of the passenger for each seat installed;
(3) Baggage allowance for each passenger; and
(4) Full fuel, including a minimum of the half hour fuel reserve required for day
visual flight rules in FAR 91.151(a)(1)
This definitively states, and presents, the definition of maximum takeoff weight
as a formula, to be applied in determining the weight parameter in FAR 1.1,
and is applicably to any and all aircraft, other than a helicopter or
powered-lift, to determine what may be considered a light sport eligible aircraft,
and no other definition, or use of the term maximum weight as found in the
F.A.Rs or elsewhere may be substituted at will. Not Gross weight, Maximum Gross
weight, Maximum gross takeoff weight, or any of the other terms that are
tossed around.
This weight, maximum takeoff weight , is defined specifically by the FAA for LSA
issues, as the sum of : (1), (2), (3), and (4),
Example:
A Kitfox Series 5, with an empty weight of 710 lbs (1) with both seats filled (2),
and, full fuel tanks (3), still leaves 63 pounds of for baggage allowance
as required by (4)
Seats filled 2 x 180 = 360 lbs
Full tanks (inc header) 27 gal. x 6 lbs = 162 lbs
Empty weight as on current W&B = 710 lbs.
-----------------------
1232
lbs
Baggage on board 25 lbs
--------------------
1257
lbs as weighed and loaded
Weight at time of takeoff is 63 lbs LESS THAN 1320 lbs.
Note: In this loading configuration the aircraft is well within its demonstrated
and published flight envelope
AND, the aircraft has not been altered or modified since it was issued its airworthiness
certificate, in order to meet the definition.
Example: The fuel capacity has not been modified to lower the weight of (4) full
fuel. as a result removing large fuel tanks and installing smaller fuel tanks.
Therefore, it has met the condition, since its original certification, has continued
to meet the following:
1) A maximum takeoff weight (add (1), (2), (3), and (4) of not more than (1320lbs
max. land use) and it has been able to do so continuously since the airworthiness
certificate was issued.
Conclusion
One pilot may, under Sport pilot privileges, operate the aircraft at a maximum
takeoff weight up to 1320 lbs, another pilot flying under private pilot privileges,
up to the design weight, in this case 1400 lbs. Same aircraft.
A Kitfox Series 7 has a design weight of up to 1550 lbs, yet if the sum of
(1),(2), (3), and (4) is not greater then maximum takeoff weight of 1320 lbs
as defined, and the other parameters are met, it too may be operated by a pilot
flying under Sport Pilot privileges.
One must read and understand the Final Rule and apply it correctly to the regulation
it governs.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71595#71595
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: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
61.315 (a)
If you hold a sport pilot certificate you may act as pilot in command of a light-sport
aircraft, except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section
And what is the weight limit definition of lightsport aircraft?
"maximum takeoff weight".?
Then, what is the definition of "maximum takeoff weight".?
Knowing that there is a exact definition for "maximum tateoff weight" use that
definition to determine "maximum takeoff weight" as it applies to the perameter
and do not be concerned with the design weight of an expermintal.
And a series 5 or 7, depending on empty weight will most times fit the definition
and has been able to, since it was issued it's airworthiness certificate.
("since original certification")
--------
Steve: Former Fi-156 'Storch' driver (...talk about folding wings!!!)
New owner, not builder- Kitfox V / 912UL / Warp Dr 3 blade. Thanks to the late
great Ray Mudge, Brighton Mi.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71604#71604
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 |
|
Kirk
First thing to check is your antenna. It seems like you have an open or
short and your VSWR has gone west on you. This will cause your TX final in
the set to heat and turn off. If it works okay out of the plane on a
different antenna then check you antenna for a short or open with a VOM
Hope this helps
Ted
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
Sent: November 1, 2006 3:43 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: radio problem
I have a strange radio problem. I am using an Icom A4 it works great out of
the airplane but will only transmit for about 5 sec when it is within 6
inches of any metal part of the airplane.
It use to work fine in the plane. Many changes have been made to the plane
but I have no idea what is causing the problem. Any Ideas?
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: radio problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Try a cable to a remote antenna outside of the plane
with the radio inside. The rubber ducky you now have
put on the end of the cable will work for the test.
Just an idea about it...
Kurt S. S-5
--- kirk hull <kirkhull@kc.rr.com> wrote:
> I have a strange radio problem. I am using an Icom
> A4 it works great out of
> the airplane but will only transmit for about 5 sec
> when it is within 6
> inches of any metal part of the airplane.
> It use to work fine in the plane. Many changes have
> been made to the plane
> but I have no idea what is causing the problem. Any
> Ideas?
(http://voice.yahoo.com)
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: | Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Grant Bright" <gbright@bellsouth.net>
While this bulletin applies to STCs, the facts about the
negative effects of alcohol in Mogas are listed.
Here is the link:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/alerts/saib/media/CE-07-06.pdf
Even though I am in the South, I will start checking all
gasoline before I put it into the Kitfox.
Cheers,
Grant
Series 5
N21VX
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: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 02:53 PM 11/1/2006, you wrote:
>Conclusion
>One pilot may, under Sport pilot privileges, operate the aircraft at a
>maximum takeoff weight up to 1320 lbs, another pilot flying under
>private pilot privileges, up to the design weight, in this case 1400 lbs.
>Same aircraft.
> A Kitfox Series 7 has a design weight of up to 1550 lbs, yet if the
> sum of (1),(2), (3), and (4) is not greater then maximum takeoff
> weight of 1320 lbs as defined, and the other parameters are met, it
> too may be operated by a pilot flying under Sport Pilot privileges.
>
>One must read and understand the Final Rule and apply it correctly to the
>regulation it governs.
Hi Steve,
Are you saying that your FSDO or the FAA have corroborated your
logic and have agreed that you may fly a 1400# gross aircraft as a sport
pilot? As you can see from Tim's post, the FAA's agreement is more
important than your logic's perfection.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: radio problem |
I am beginnig to think the answer to that is because it is an Icom...I have had
nothing but trouble with my A24. The transmission on my unit does very poor (no
more than 3 miles line of sight) my $30 walkie talkies do 10 miles easy.
Ok...to evaluate yours...
1. Does it have emergency weather on it? If the weather is turned on, it will
interfere with transmissions.
2. Is your battery completely charged?
3. I have found that the unit will not transmit (and if you ask, Icom will say
you shouldn't) while it is charging or plugged in...go figure that one out.
I have sent mine in to get it fixed and they sent it back and said it checked
out fine on the bench. My personal opinion about the Icom products...they suck.
Dan
kirk hull <kirkhull@kc.rr.com> wrote:
I have a strange radio problem. I am using an Icom A4 it works
great out of the airplane but will only transmit for about 5 sec when it is within
6 inches of any metal part of the airplane.
It use to work fine in the plane. Many changes have been made to the plane
but I have no idea what is causing the problem. Any Ideas?
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: radio problem |
Dan I have several ICOM radios A22, A 6 and A 24 .
A6 rubber ducky in shop or a plane is fine .
a22 same
a24 will not transmit if plugged in to 12v or 11 v what ever it is.
a24 with rubber ducky will squeal in plane and it hooked through a
sigtronics intercom. But with the external antennae it works fine and
I the nav and com works flawless for receiving fine depending on
altitude. I talk to ATC 25 miles away or more under 2000 agl and no
issues.
ICOM has a three yr warranty too and are pretty good.
I just sent in summer a A 6 for a guy and they sent back no charge a
brand news a 24 and he is very happy with it.
So the guy with the A 6 guy in plane ? try a different antenna. ?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Billingsley
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: radio problem
I am beginnig to think the answer to that is because it is an Icom...I
have had nothing but trouble with my A24. The transmission on my unit
does very poor (no more than 3 miles line of sight) my $30 walkie
talkies do 10 miles easy.
Ok...to evaluate yours...
1. Does it have emergency weather on it? If the weather is turned on,
it will interfere with transmissions.
2. Is your battery completely charged?
3. I have found that the unit will not transmit (and if you ask, Icom
will say you shouldn't) while it is charging or plugged in...go figure
that one out.
I have sent mine in to get it fixed and they sent it back and said it
checked out fine on the bench. My personal opinion about the Icom
products...they suck.
Dan
kirk hull <kirkhull@kc.rr.com> wrote:
I have a strange radio problem. I am using an Icom A4 it works
great out of the airplane but will only transmit for about 5 sec when it
is within 6 inches of any metal part of the
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: radio problem |
Sorry it a A4 --- possible your PA is dying ?
Call ICOM and if you got reciept under 3 years it free warranty job.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: kirk hull
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 5:42 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: radio problem
I have a strange radio problem. I am using an Icom A4 it works great
out of the airplane but will only transmit for about 5 sec when it is
within 6 inches of any metal part of the airplane.
It use to work fine in the plane. Many changes have been made to the
plane but I have no idea what is causing the problem. Any Ideas?
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: 3 Pointers water wheel skiing |
Hi,
Here is 4 Harvards doing it
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=521173
and a Video here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeeAI1wTMiA&search=T6
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: kirk hull
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 5:36 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 3 Pointers water wheel skiing
Go to google under "Water skiing airplanes!"
It's there at the top!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Malcolmbru@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 8:29 PM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 3 Pointers water wheel skiing
has any one seen the video of the BI wings in formation wheel skiing
on water
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: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
All,
I went out today to do some slow flight and it digressed into a
little more than that. First I discovered that if you really pull back
during power-on stalls you can get the plane to about a 45 - 60 degree
pitch angle; and both the wings and horizontal stabilizer / elevator stall.
It's quite exciting, as everything buffets like crazy, the plane drops sort
of flat and you have to push forward hard to get everything hooked up
again. (Yeah, I know, I probably should have been wearing a chute.)
Next I practiced some accelerated stalls from 45 degrees at about
55MIAS. The interesting thing was that turning left the inside wing stalled
first and I tucked under. Going right the outside wing stalled and I went
over the top. (Actually I just went flat. It was very benign.) I carefully
watched the ball and the effect was very repeatable so I'm not sure why,
other than that I sit on the left side of the plane. I even went back and
did more stalls straight ahead and both wings broke together repeatedly.
Finally, and most important, I did some engine out turn-back
practice. I found that from a 55 or 60MIAS full throttle climb I could turn
back in 200' of vertical altitude, even with a 3-count time delay after
throttle off. When I pulled the throttle I would count 3, push hard, while
rolling into a 45 degree bank, and pull, holding 60 - 70MIAS until
horizontal, whereupon I rolled out sharply. I did about ten of them and
every one was under 200' altitude loss. So now I know that if my engine
quits at 500' plus I'll turn back. From 300' to 500' I can turn back to a
taxi-way or some other parallel landing spot, if it exists. And from 0 -
300' I land straight ahead. Obviously these options vary place to place.
More fun!
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
There is no logic necessary, just the ability to read and add.
Here is a webpage from Van's. Read and see how it is a "useful load" situation,
not a "how much has it been designed to safely lift".
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12int.htm
Read that and then go back and read the original post. same thing , different authors.
or do we both "just" have the same "logic" Perhaps someone would care
to inform Van's they are wrong too.
A problem is that if your (or mine) local FAA guy is not aware of the definition
of "maximum gross weight" that applies to the regulation, all he will reference
is whatever he is familiar with and use his own definition. They get in
a "Gross weight" mentality.
When the BIG GUY in the FAA wrote the words "maximum takeoff weight" in the
lightsport definition, he also wrote the definition of "maximum takeoff" that
he requires you to use when applying it.
He just didn't put it on the same page.
--------
Steve: Former Fi-156 'Storch' driver (...talk about folding wings!!!)
New owner, not builder- Kitfox V / 912UL / Warp Dr 3 blade. Thanks to the late
great Ray Mudge, Brighton Mi.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71632#71632
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: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
The specs for the RV12 list the gross weight as 1320lb.
> Here is a webpage from Van's. Read and see how it is a "useful load" situation,
not a "how much has it been designed to safely lift".
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71636#71636
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: Still Learning |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
There is one question. Was your engine still turning with the
throttle pulled or was it dead with the prop probably
still turning? I understand there is a fair difference in resulting
loss of altitude. Just pulling the throttle still allows the engine
to idle and it is not the same as a stopped engine. While it is good
practice, the plane will not loose altitude as quickly as the truly
stopped engine where the prop is a true drag.
Jim Crowder
At 06:15 PM 11/1/2006, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
>
>All,
> I went out today to do some slow flight and it digressed
> into a little more than that. First I discovered that if you really
> pull back during power-on stalls you can get the plane to about a
> 45 - 60 degree pitch angle; and both the wings and horizontal
> stabilizer / elevator stall. It's quite exciting, as everything
> buffets like crazy, the plane drops sort of flat and you have to
> push forward hard to get everything hooked up again. (Yeah, I know,
> I probably should have been wearing a chute.)
> Next I practiced some accelerated stalls from 45 degrees at
> about 55MIAS. The interesting thing was that turning left the
> inside wing stalled first and I tucked under. Going right the
> outside wing stalled and I went over the top. (Actually I just went
> flat. It was very benign.) I carefully watched the ball and the
> effect was very repeatable so I'm not sure why, other than that I
> sit on the left side of the plane. I even went back and did more
> stalls straight ahead and both wings broke together repeatedly.
> Finally, and most important, I did some engine out
> turn-back practice. I found that from a 55 or 60MIAS full throttle
> climb I could turn back in 200' of vertical altitude, even with a
> 3-count time delay after throttle off. When I pulled the throttle I
> would count 3, push hard, while rolling into a 45 degree bank, and
> pull, holding 60 - 70MIAS until horizontal, whereupon I rolled out
> sharply. I did about ten of them and every one was under 200'
> altitude loss. So now I know that if my engine quits at 500' plus
> I'll turn back. From 300' to 500' I can turn back to a taxi-way or
> some other parallel landing spot, if it exists. And from 0 - 300' I
> land straight ahead. Obviously these options vary place to place.
> More fun!
>
>
>Guy Buchanan
>K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
>
>
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: | Need a floating ball for fuel quantity sight tube |
Hi Guys,
I use a piece of clear fuel tubing looped between the top
and bottom fittings of my wing tanks. Inside the tube at
the top and bottom is a spring to prevent the tube from
kinking. I would like to add a floating ball to help me better
locate the fuel level. (I'm in the tri-focal generation.) What
would you recommend that would not dissolve? I can bend
the end of each spring to keep the ball out of the tank...
Thanks,
Joe Connell
Stewartville, MN
Kitfox-II N62JK
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: Need a floating ball for fuel quantity sight tube |
Joe,
Some have used one of the balls from an antifreeze tester that uses a
bunch of colored balls to indicate freezing level.
Jim Crowder
At 07:30 PM 11/1/2006, you wrote:
>Hi Guys,
>
>I use a piece of clear fuel tubing looped between the top
>and bottom fittings of my wing tanks. Inside the tube at
>the top and bottom is a spring to prevent the tube from
>kinking. I would like to add a floating ball to help me better
>locate the fuel level. (I'm in the tri-focal generation.) What
>would you recommend that would not dissolve? I can bend
>the end of each spring to keep the ball out of the tank...
>
>Thanks,
>
>Joe Connell
>Stewartville, MN
>Kitfox-II N62JK
>
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: | Matronics Email List Fund Raiser - November! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers,
Each November I hold a PBS-like fund raiser to support the continued operation
and upgrade of the List services at Matronics. It's through these sole Contributions
of List members that these Matronics Lists are possible.
You have probably noticed that there are no banner ads or pop-up windows on any of the Matronics Lists or related web sites such as the Forums site ( http://forums.matronics.com ), Wiki site ( http://wiki.matronics.com ), or other related pages such as the List Search Engine ( http://www.matornics.com/search ), List Browse ( http://www.matornics.com/listbrowse ), etc. This is because I believe in a List experience that is completely about the sport we all enjoy - namely Airplanes and not about annoying advertisments.
During the month of November I will be sending out List messages every few days
reminding everyone that the Fund Raiser is underway. Each message will generally
highlight a particular feature or benefit of the Matronics Lists or detail
a new feature or service that was added this year. I ask for your patience
and understanding during the Fund Raiser and throughout these regular messages.
The Fund Raiser is only financial support mechanism I have to pay all of the
bills associated with running these lists.
Once again, this year I've got a terrific line up of free gifts to go along with
the various Contribution levels. Most all of these gifts have been provided
by some of the vary members and vendors that you'll find on Matronics Lists and
have been either donated or provided at substantially discounted rates.
This year, these generous people include Bob Nuckolls of the AeroElectric Connection (http://www.aeroelectric.com/), Paul Besing of Aeroware Enterprises aka Kitlog Pro (http://www.kitlog.com/), Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore (http://www.buildersbooks.com/), and Jon Croke of HomebuiltHELP (http://www.homebuilthelp.com/).
These are extremely generous guys and I encourage you to visit their respective
web sites. Each one offers a unique and very useful aviation-related product
line. I would like publicly to thank Bob, Paul, Andy, and Jon for their generous
support of the Lists again this year!!
You can make your List Contribution using any one of three secure methods this
year including using a credit card, PayPal, or by personal check. All three methods
afford you the opportunity to select one of this year's free gifts with
a qualifying Contribution amount!!
To make your Contribution, please visit the secure site below:
https://www.matronics.com/contribution
I would like to thank everyone in advance for their generous financial AND moral
support over the years. I know it sounds a little cliche, but you guys really
do feel like family.
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
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: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
The specs for the RV12 list the gross weight as 1320lb.
Yes, because they will offer the aircraft for ELSA airworthiness certification.
Isn't the baggage allowance on the 7 listed as 150lb?
A baggage compartment CAPACITY is 150lbs.
The "baggage allowence" means "allow for the bags, or anything, you are bringing
with you in the aircraft" and in the original example 25 lbs of "baggage"
has been included. Carry as much "baggage as you wish as long as you do not excced
the "maximum takeoff weight" of 1320 lbs.
--------
Steve: Former Fi-156 'Storch' driver (...talk about folding wings!!!)
New owner, not builder- Kitfox V / 912UL / Warp Dr 3 blade. Thanks to the late
great Ray Mudge, Brighton Mi.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71707#71707
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Still Learning |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 06:52 PM 11/1/2006, you wrote:
>There is one question. Was your engine still turning with the
>throttle pulled or was it dead with the prop probably
>still turning?
In my case I'm not sure it makes a difference, since I'm running a
582 with a clutch. The prop's going to turn either way. When I get more
courage I think I'll try some true engine shut-downs over one of the
private strips out here to see the difference and to see how the airplane
behaves with a dead engine.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff |
wei
At 06:09 PM 11/1/2006, you wrote:
>Read that and then go back and read the original post. same thing ,
>different authors. or do we both "just" have the same "logic" Perhaps
>someone would care to inform Van's they are wrong too.
I still don't understand. Van's website says:
"We are trying to achieve a 550 lb payload ' this equates to two 190 lb
people, 120 lbs of fuel and 50 lbs of baggage. If you subtract this payload
from the maximum 1320 lb gross weight dictated by Light Sport regulations,
you can see that the empty weight of the airplane must be around 750 lbs to
allow for the inevitable creep or miscalculation."
What part of ". . . 1320 lb gross weight dictated by Light Sport
regulations . . ." am I not understanding? Is it perhaps the definition of
gross weight?
>
>A problem is that if your (or mine) local FAA guy is not aware of the
>definition of "maximum gross weight" that applies to the regulation, all
>he will reference is whatever he is familiar with and use his own
>definition. They get in a "Gross weight" mentality.
> When the BIG GUY in the FAA wrote the words "maximum takeoff weight"
> in the lightsport definition, he also wrote the definition of "maximum
> takeoff" that he requires you to use when applying it.
> He just didn't put it on the same page.
Are you seriously telling me that your personal interpretation is going to
hold over the FAA's? Or are you offering to fight this to the top on behalf
of all Light Sport pilots? If so, I heartily thank you in advance, both for
your insight and for your perseverance.
Respectfully,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Need a floating ball for fuel quantity sight tube |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 06:30 PM 11/1/2006, you wrote:
>What
>would you recommend that would not dissolve? I can bend
>the end of each spring to keep the ball out of the tank...
Joe,
I put two spray tubes from B-12 Chemtool spray cans into my sight
tubes. The show where the fuel level is by diffraction. (They show a visual
kink where the fuel level is.)
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Need a floating ball for fuel quantity sight tube |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Another old trick is to put a piece of white paper in back of the site tube
with diagonal lines marked on it. They will show a positive demarkation at
the fuel level
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Buchanan" <bnn@nethere.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Need a floating ball for fuel quantity sight tube
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
>
> At 06:30 PM 11/1/2006, you wrote:
>>What
>>would you recommend that would not dissolve? I can bend
>>the end of each spring to keep the ball out of the tank...
>
> Joe,
> I put two spray tubes from B-12 Chemtool spray cans into my sight
> tubes. The show where the fuel level is by diffraction. (They show a
> visual kink where the fuel level is.)
>
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
>
>
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
Reverse engineering.
What Van's is getting at is that if they take a "maximum takeoff weight senerio
of as they say A 550 lb. payload this equates to two 190 lb. people, 120 lbs.
of fuel and 50 lbs. of baggage.
( which is items (2) +(3) +(4) and subtract it from 1320lbs the remainder is
what the must keep the airframeengine empty weight at or below 750lbs to be able
to meet the definition of "maximum takeoff weight
Remember..... If Empty weight + both seats filled, + full tanks and a bit
of baggage is less than 1320 you have meet the definition for "maximum takeoff
weight "
--------
Steve: Former Fi-156 'Storch' driver (...talk about folding wings!!!)
New owner, not builder- Kitfox V / 912UL / Warp Dr 3 blade. Thanks to the late
great Ray Mudge, Brighton Mi.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71715#71715
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Steve,
One question. Since you seem quite convinced as to your interpretation of
the LSA regs., would you be willing to personally guarantee Tim Colman that
if he buys that Kitfox he has been looking at and it somehow turns out he
can't fly it as a LSA, you would reimburse him all costs and assume
ownership of the airplane.
I think it is one thing to persevere in ones beliefs, but I see problems if
by persuasion, another is harmed by potentially erroneous advice. From what
I have read in the alphabet organizations, you seem to be pretty much alone
in your view of the LSA regs, but this would be an easy way to prove your
commitment to your intrepretation.
Consider that if you are willing to indemnify Tim, you will be doing it in
front of about 400 witnesses.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:09 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff
wei
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
>
> There is no logic necessary, just the ability to read and add.
>
> Here is a webpage from Van's. Read and see how it is a "useful load"
> situation, not a "how much has it been designed to safely lift".
>
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12int.htm
>
> Read that and then go back and read the original post. same thing ,
> different authors. or do we both "just" have the same "logic" Perhaps
> someone would care to inform Van's they are wrong too.
>
> A problem is that if your (or mine) local FAA guy is not aware of the
> definition of "maximum gross weight" that applies to the regulation, all
> he will reference is whatever he is familiar with and use his own
> definition. They get in a "Gross weight" mentality.
> When the BIG GUY in the FAA wrote the words "maximum takeoff weight" in
> the lightsport definition, he also wrote the definition of "maximum
> takeoff" that he requires you to use when applying it.
> He just didn't put it on the same page.
>
> --------
> Steve: Former Fi-156 'Storch' driver (...talk about folding wings!!!)
> New owner, not builder- Kitfox V / 912UL / Warp Dr 3 blade. Thanks to the
> late great Ray Mudge, Brighton Mi.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71632#71632
>
>
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "ron schick" <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
Luigi try to borrow a prop tach from model airplane buddies. You will have
to do the math for the gearbox, but they usually have 2 or 3 blade settings.
Tiny-tach has 3 or 4 models and can be misleading. I used a $30.00 model
airplane photo tach and found a HUGE discrepancy which cured my problems.
Ron NB Ore
>From: "luigi" <luigi316@libero.it>
>To: "kitfox-list" <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Kitfox-List: Ground run
>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 17:15:26 +0100
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "luigi" <luigi316@libero.it>
>
>Hi All,
>I have just completed the overhaul of my Kitfox II and made first ground
>run. I have a 582 grey head and a new Ivoprop 68". I set the pitch for 6200
>static and putting a dynamometer between the airplane and the truck i have
>a thrust of 290 lbs. Is this a good value ? I also a doubt on the rpm, i
>have a change of 200 rpm more in the reading when i switch off the battery.
>I don't understand the reason as the istrument is connected directly to the
>engine and ground. I think that before the first flight it'll be better to
>install a tiny tach.
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "ron schick" <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
Tim I am not the final word of the faa. However I recieved an airworthyness
certificate for an Avid A model that I set the gross weight at 1050 lbs.
This was 200 lbs more than the original kit. You can apply for the ORIGINAL
aw certificate with a MAX GROSS WEIGHT of 1320. This would not be a
modification or manipulation of the rule. That plane would fit the bill,
but might go overweight easily. ANY OTHER PLANE THAT IS AW GW OVER 1320 IS
A NO. Couldn't fly my Cessna low on fuel and qualify could I !!!!!
Sorry.... Just my opinion Ron NB Ore
>From: Timothy Colman <tpcolman@yahoo.com>
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff
>wei
>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:19:30 -0800 (PST)
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Timothy Colman <tpcolman@yahoo.com>
>
>I'm a lurker here. Your note dovetails exactly with a question I have been
>trying to get an answer to, namely if a Kitfox is rated at 1400 lbs. can it
>be operrated under the Sport Pilot rules. This question is important
>because if the answer is yes there is a Kitfox on Barnstormers I want to
>buy, and right away.
>
>So, from reading your note, say a PP operates a Kitfox 5 at a max weight of
>1400 lbs., then he sells that plane. Can a SP operate the same airplane at
>a max weight of 1320 and be legal?
>
>Thanks,
>Tim Colman
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: 84KF <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 4:53:02 PM
>Subject: Kitfox-List: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei
>
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
>
>Most published information is not accurate with regards to Sport pilot
>privileges and aircraft weight limits. The only official weight
>limit, as found in FAR 1.1 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS is (1) Maximum
>Takeoff Weight . But one must not there. Maximum Takeoff Weight is
>then defined, precisely and is on record, by the FAA.
> This one simple paragraph, that is overlooked by both professional
>writers and FAA representatives is the key to proper applicability of Sport
>pilot privileges and aircraft eligibility. This is the definition of
>Maximum Takeoff Weight as applied to LSASport Pilot issues.
>
>Paragraph (1) Maximum certificated takeoff weight
>Some commenters stated that lacking a definition of maximum takeoff weight,
>aircraft with fairly high performance
>characteristics could meet the definition of light-sport aircraft by
>limiting the approved weight and payload of the airplane. The FAA
>considers this a valid concern and has provided some additional constraints
>on the weight as detailed below. The maximum weight of
>a light-sport aircraft is the sum of:
>(1) Aircraft empty weight;
>(2) Weight of the passenger for each seat installed;
>(3) Baggage allowance for each passenger; and
>(4) Full fuel, including a minimum of the half-hour fuel reserve required
>for day visual flight rules in 91.151 (a)(1).
>
>As you know, the definition of light sport aircraft is found in FAR
>1.1
>
>Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or
>powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet
>the following:
>(1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than
>(i) 660 pounds (300 kilograms) for lighter-than-air aircraft;
>(ii) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation
>on water; or
>(iii) 1,430 pounds (650 kilograms) for an aircraft intended for operation
>on water.
>maximum takeoff weight defined in final
>
>The FAA realized it needed to and did, include the definition of maximum
>takeoff weight as it applies to the LSA definition in 1.1 and it is
>found on page 44793 of
>Federal Register
>Certification of Aircraft and Airman for the Operation of Light-Sport
>aircraft; Final Rule. Dated July 27, 2004
>It says, verbatim,
> Some commentators stated that lacking a definition of maximum take off
>weight, aircraft with fairly high performance characteristics could meet
>the definition of light-sport aircraft by limiting the approved weight and
>payload of the airplane. The FAA considers this a valid concern and has
>provided some additional constraints on the weight as detailed below. The
>maximum weight of a light-sport aircraft is the sum of :
>(1) Aircraft empty weight;
>(2) Weight of the passenger for each seat installed;
>(3) Baggage allowance for each passenger; and
>(4) Full fuel, including a minimum of the half hour fuel reserve required
>for day visual flight rules in FAR 91.151(a)(1)
>
>This definitively states, and presents, the definition of maximum
>takeoff weight as a formula, to be applied in determining the weight
>parameter in FAR 1.1, and is applicably to any and all aircraft, other
>than a helicopter or
>powered-lift, to determine what may be considered a light sport eligible
>aircraft, and no other definition, or use of the term maximum weight
>as found in the F.A.Rs or elsewhere may be substituted at will. Not
>Gross weight, Maximum Gross weight, Maximum gross takeoff weight, or any of
>the other terms that are tossed around.
>
>This weight, maximum takeoff weight , is defined specifically by the
>FAA for LSA issues, as the sum of : (1), (2), (3), and (4),
>
>Example:
>A Kitfox Series 5, with an empty weight of 710 lbs (1) with both seats
>filled (2), and, full fuel tanks (3), still leaves 63 pounds of for
>baggage allowance as required by (4)
>
>Seats filled 2 x 180 = 360 lbs
>Full tanks (inc header) 27 gal. x 6 lbs = 162 lbs
>Empty weight as on current W&B = 710 lbs.
>
>-----------------------
>
>1232 lbs
>Baggage on board 25 lbs
>
>--------------------
>
> 1257 lbs as weighed and loaded
>
>Weight at time of takeoff is 63 lbs LESS THAN 1320 lbs.
>Note: In this loading configuration the aircraft is well within its
>demonstrated and published flight envelope
>
>AND, the aircraft has not been altered or modified since it was issued
>its airworthiness certificate, in order to meet the definition.
>Example: The fuel capacity has not been modified to lower the weight of
>(4) full fuel. as a result removing large fuel tanks and installing
>smaller fuel tanks.
>
>Therefore, it has met the condition, since its original certification,
>has continued to meet the following:
>1) A maximum takeoff weight (add (1), (2), (3), and (4) of not more
>than (1320lbs max. land use) and it has been able to do so
>continuously since the airworthiness certificate was issued.
>
>Conclusion
>One pilot may, under Sport pilot privileges, operate the aircraft at a
>maximum takeoff weight up to 1320 lbs, another pilot flying under
>private pilot privileges, up to the design weight, in this case 1400 lbs.
>Same aircraft.
> A Kitfox Series 7 has a design weight of up to 1550 lbs, yet if the
>sum of (1),(2), (3), and (4) is not greater then maximum takeoff
>weight of 1320 lbs as defined, and the other parameters are met, it too
>may be operated by a pilot flying under Sport Pilot privileges.
>
>One must read and understand the Final Rule and apply it correctly to the
>regulation it governs.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71595#71595
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and morethen map the best
route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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! --
|