Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:14 AM - Re: Still Learning (dave)
2. 04:41 AM - Re: radio problem (kirk hull)
3. 04:54 AM - Re: radio problem (kirk hull)
4. 05:06 AM - Re: radio problem (dave)
5. 05:12 AM - Re: radio problem (dave)
6. 05:18 AM - Re: radio problem (dave)
7. 05:19 AM - Re: radio problem (dave)
8. 05:20 AM - Re: radio problem (dave)
9. 05:20 AM - Re: radio problem (dave)
10. 05:37 AM - Multiple mails (Dave)
11. 06:02 AM - Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (Paul Seehafer)
12. 06:07 AM - Re: OFF-TOPIC: ATC question/ Add Language (Noel Loveys)
13. 06:19 AM - Re: radio problem (Noel Loveys)
14. 06:24 AM - Re: Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (Bob)
15. 06:43 AM - Re: radio problem (Noel Loveys)
16. 06:47 AM - Re: Still Learning (Marco Menezes)
17. 06:54 AM - Re: radio problem (Noel Loveys)
18. 07:09 AM - Re: Ground run (Noel Loveys)
19. 07:15 AM - Re: Still Learning (Guy Buchanan)
20. 07:38 AM - Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (crazyivan)
21. 08:01 AM - Re: Still Learning (dave)
22. 08:05 AM - Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (84KF)
23. 08:30 AM - Water Skiing and Flying (Nick Scholtes)
24. 08:31 AM - Water Skiing and Flying, oops, here's the link (Nick Scholtes)
25. 08:56 AM - Re: radio problem (kirk hull)
26. 08:59 AM - Re: radio problem (kirk hull)
27. 09:01 AM - Re: radio problem (kirk hull)
28. 10:00 AM - Re: radio problem (kurt schrader)
29. 10:31 AM - Re: radio problem (Noel Loveys)
30. 10:56 AM - Re: radio problem (kirk hull)
31. 11:31 AM - Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (Jose M. Toro)
32. 12:04 PM - Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (84KF)
33. 12:16 PM - Re: Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (dave)
34. 12:21 PM - "maximum takeoff weight" Page by page (84KF)
35. 01:35 PM - Re: radio problem (Ted Palamarek)
36. 02:21 PM - Ethanol (Don Smythe)
37. 02:23 PM - Re: Water Skiing and Flying, oops, here's the link (Richard Rabbers)
38. 04:49 PM - Flaperons and wing folding (rudderdancer)
39. 06:56 PM - Re: Need a floating ball for fuel quantity sight tube (neflyer48)
40. 07:31 PM - Re: radio problem (kirk hull)
41. 08:13 PM - Re: radio problem (Ted Palamarek)
42. 08:59 PM - Need a floating ball for fuel quantity sight tube (Rexster)
43. 09:51 PM - 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case. (84KF)
44. 10:44 PM - Re: Water Skiing and Flying, oops, here's the link (Richard D'Archangel)
45. 10:45 PM - My Kitfox trailer (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: Still Learning |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Guy, Good stuff,
How is your prop and take off issue now ? getting off a bit quicker ?
You should put a video cam in your cockpit with you for some of your
80s -would look real good.
great practice, just be careful .
I was doing last week some practice engine outs on take off but at best
angle climb 45 mph ias
chop throttle -- nose down immediately and select landing spot. those
were done from 100 to 300 agl and I would not try a 180 on take off.
I do allot of flying at under 300 agl but 180s on take off prove to be
fatal exercise many times too often.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Buchanan" <bnn@nethere.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 8:15 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Still Learning
> --> 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 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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@kc.rr.com>
I will have to get a wire but I will try that and let you know. This is just
weird. It works great everywhere else just not in the plane. Even with the
engine and master off.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt schrader
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 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 |
|
I have been using the same antenna inside and outside the aircraft. If I
hold down the transmit button outside the aircraft it will transmit then if
I move the radio toward the aircraft it will stop transmitting at about 6
inches of any metal part of the plane. It works fine in the car.
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ted Palamarek
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: radio problem
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 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: radio problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Kirk,
Do you have a GPS ?
If so they can play havoc on certain freq.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@kc.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 7:39 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: radio problem
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@kc.rr.com>
>
> I will have to get a wire but I will try that and let you know. This is
> just
> weird. It works great everywhere else just not in the plane. Even with
> the
> engine and master off.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt schrader
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:18 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 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: radio problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Kirk,
Do you have a GPS ?
If so they can play havoc on certain freq.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@kc.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 7:39 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: radio problem
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@kc.rr.com>
>
> I will have to get a wire but I will try that and let you know. This is
> just
> weird. It works great everywhere else just not in the plane. Even with
> the
> engine and master off.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt schrader
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:18 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 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: radio problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Kirk,
Do you have a GPS ?
If so they can play havoc on certain freq.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@kc.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 7:39 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: radio problem
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@kc.rr.com>
>
> I will have to get a wire but I will try that and let you know. This is
> just
> weird. It works great everywhere else just not in the plane. Even with
> the
> engine and master off.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt schrader
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:18 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 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: radio problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Kirk,
Do you have a GPS ?
If so they can play havoc on certain freq.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@kc.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 7:39 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: radio problem
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@kc.rr.com>
>
> I will have to get a wire but I will try that and let you know. This is
> just
> weird. It works great everywhere else just not in the plane. Even with
> the
> engine and master off.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt schrader
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:18 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 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: radio problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Kirk,
Do you have a GPS ?
If so they can play havoc on certain freq.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@kc.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 7:39 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: radio problem
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@kc.rr.com>
>
> I will have to get a wire but I will try that and let you know. This is
> just
> weird. It works great everywhere else just not in the plane. Even with
> the
> engine and master off.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt schrader
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:18 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 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: radio problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Kirk,
Do you have a GPS ?
If so they can play havoc on certain freq.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@kc.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 7:39 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: radio problem
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@kc.rr.com>
>
> I will have to get a wire but I will try that and let you know. This is
> just
> weird. It works great everywhere else just not in the plane. Even with
> the
> engine and master off.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt schrader
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:18 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Sorry about duplicate mamils.
New hard drive, new format and was fine untilli imported old messages.
Will try web mail now till resolved.
Dave
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Tim,
Regardless of how many different ways we pick apart the definitions of the
Light Sport Category, I am convinced the FAA will not allow you to operate a
1400 lb gross weight Kitfox as a Light Sport Aircraft. It would be
wonderful if we could, and admire Steve for thinking there is a way around
this. But until you see a rule change, or get a written approval from your
FSDO (or better yet Oklahoma City) be careful purchasing an airplane
thinking it will qualify for LSA when all other sources say it won't.
The FAA many times has fielded the question whether one can just reduce
their aircrafts gross weight number so it will qualify as a Light Sport
aircraft, and every time their response has been been "no". Now if Steve
can challenge them and get a change, my hats off to him (you'd be a true
hero if you can pull that one off...)
But until that happens, if I were in the process of buying an airplane that
was questionable LSA, I would follow the advice readily available from
sources like EAA's technical specialist Joe Norris (who has direct contacts
with FAA's Sport Pilot section, is a licensed A&P / IA with years of
practical experience, and is a DAR for Light sport aircraft), or the FAA
itself.
Just my two cents worth.
Paul Seehafer
Central Wisconsin
Model IV Kitfox
----- Original Message -----
From: "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
>
>
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: | OFF-TOPIC: ATC question/ Add Language |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
I won't soon forget the day one of the ski patrollers at the local ski hill
had his transmitter jammed on as he was racing down the hill :-)
He caught you know what for that one
73 DE VO1 PL
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Michel Verheughe
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:35 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 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 |
|
My guess is there has been a piece of something metal, not grounded
about
18-20" long in your cockpit that is acting as a parasitic element and
causing a high SWR on your antenna. If you can find that ( probably
wire
but could be something like a windshield support ) ground it. Circuits
in
your radio are protecting your output transistors by shutting the radio
down. you could try an external antenna... just make sure the base of
the
antenna is well grounded.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 7:13 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 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: Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob" <dswaim1119@comcast.net>
It's more than the South, as can be seen in the following link:
http://www.cleanfuelsdc.org/info/images/Map.gif
In nearly all of Maryland, we're stuck with roughly $4/gallon avgas because the
ethanol additives are all that's now used in $2.20 mogas. All of our auto-gas
STC's are effectively useless. A number of other states are in the same boat.
This was a poorly applied political decree, as the alchohol isn't produced
near here, so the benefits are negative. :(
Bob
--------
Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71756#71756
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
I just noticed the 6in. part of your post. That makes me think I was all
wet about the parasitic causing a high SWR. I assume you are using only the
"Rubber Ducky" antenna.
Try grounding the case of the radio around the outside of the BNC connector
(antenna connector) or any other convenient grounding point on the radio, to
the frame of the plane.
If that doesn't work try the remote antenna and let us know if that corrects
the problem.
I'm not sure why but now I'm suspecting something out of kilter ( a wire off
somewhere) in your radio. Has the radio been dropped?
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> kurt schrader
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 8:48 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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: | Re: Still Learning |
If you've got the clutch, Guy, it shouldn't make any difference. Whether the engine's
off or just idling, as you've said, the prop's gonna spin and create a
ton of drag. Incidently, I tested the engine loss on take-off scenario in my Model
2 and results were about the same as yours.
This is fun isn't it?
Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan
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.
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
---------------------------------
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 |
|
On item 3.
I guess the Icom aviation walkie talkies don't have a DC to DC converter
in
them that processes the charging voltage for use by the radio.
I have an Icom 02AT (Ham) that is pushing close to 20 yr. now and it
works
perfectly. That radio does have the DC to DC converter in it and will
work
on DC voltages between 6V and 24V. Higher voltages give slightly higher
output.
I also have an A24 that I did have a little trouble with a couple of
years
ago. The problem was not with the radio as I initially thought but
believe
it or not, with the spark plugs in my engine.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Billingsley
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:15 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 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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
You certainly need the right tiny tach for your engine. (2 stroke Vs 4
stroke) And you need to follow their instructions for installing/ making the
pickup coil. I covered mine pickup with black electrical tape to make it
look clean. It works like a charm.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> ron schick
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 2:23 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ground run
>
>
> --> 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/?h
ref=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.a
spx&mkt=en-us
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: Still Learning |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 03:13 AM 11/2/2006, you wrote:
>Guy, Good stuff,
Thanks Dave.
>How is your prop and take off issue now ? getting off a bit quicker ?
Well, solo the other day I measured a takeoff time of 8.7 seconds, which
compared fairly well to the 7 seconds I measured from your first video.
It's still markedly longer, but may indicate I'm progressing in my
technique, or I'm taking off shorter than I think. If I pull half flaps and
run up before brake release it seems to take off instantly! I'm currently
running 12.5 degrees of pitch which has lengthened my takeoff run, but
increased my top speed to about 97mph at 6000' density altitude. I'm
looking into my pipe being a problem, but have been extremely busy for two
weeks and haven't had the time to measure.
>You should put a video cam in your cockpit with you for some of your
>80s -would look real good.
You know, I should. One of my neighbors showed me the tiniest wireless
camera he's using to do tuft testing of his amphibian.
>I was doing last week some practice engine outs on take off but at best
>angle climb 45 mph ias
>chop throttle -- nose down immediately and select landing spot. those
>were done from 100 to 300 agl and I would not try a 180 on take off.
No, I wouldn't either, certainly not for practice. That's why I've redlined
my 180 at 500' unless there's an unobstructed parallel taxiway or
something. I can just see my pulling a right 180 to the taxiway at Ramona
and T-boning the tower! Might hurt a bit. . .
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "crazyivan" <dmivezic@yahoo.com>
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/
Call your local FSDO! I've called mine several times to clarify rules and interpretations.
The local guys in Portland, Maine are friendly, helpful, and professional.
--------
Dave
Speedster 912 UL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71784#71784
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: Still Learning |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Guy ,
Glad to see you getting shorter take offs .
7 second is long for me . I constantly now 5 seconds 200 feet approx.
I get about 102 mph wot now
Camera. mine are done with tape camcorder and I convert to .wmv file for
internet from analog.
I will get some cockpit ones done next few weeks and put them up.
Exhaust........ I think you should measure the length from muffler to
exhaust port through the centre of pipe with tape from outside. I think
the measurement is 26 or 28 " and that is very critical . I often
wondered my self about it as well and according to Bob "ROTAX " Robertson
he told me after my query on same that he felt the Kitfox exhaust has made
the engines seem to last longer on the Kitfox 582 but has possibly at the
expense of a bout 4 or 5 hp. I think I would like the extra longevity of
the engine seeing that mine working well . I installed a brand new 582
for a guy this past summer and it came with new exhaust. I compared it to
mine and to be honest I think the measurement was about within specs but I
did find that the stock Rotax "Y " pipe was about 1.5 " shorter on my
kitfox. I think that is to make it fit in the cowl.
I am quite confident that the Kitfox 582 can get you up to 40 more HP with
proper piping and jetting but for the average guy without a full
understanding of how to operate successfully you will end up with allot more
power, allot more fuel usage and less engine life and most likely
reliability.
Also --what rate of climb do you get now in your current setup ?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Buchanan" <bnn@nethere.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Still Learning
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
>
> At 03:13 AM 11/2/2006, you wrote:
>>Guy, Good stuff,
>
> Thanks Dave.
>
>>How is your prop and take off issue now ? getting off a bit quicker ?
>
> Well, solo the other day I measured a takeoff time of 8.7 seconds, which
> compared fairly well to the 7 seconds I measured from your first video.
> It's still markedly longer, but may indicate I'm progressing in my
> technique, or I'm taking off shorter than I think. If I pull half flaps
> and run up before brake release it seems to take off instantly! I'm
> currently running 12.5 degrees of pitch which has lengthened my takeoff
> run, but increased my top speed to about 97mph at 6000' density altitude.
> I'm looking into my pipe being a problem, but have been extremely busy for
> two weeks and haven't had the time to measure.
>
>>You should put a video cam in your cockpit with you for some of your
>>80s -would look real good.
>
> You know, I should. One of my neighbors showed me the tiniest wireless
> camera he's using to do tuft testing of his amphibian.
>
>>I was doing last week some practice engine outs on take off but at best
>>angle climb 45 mph ias
>>chop throttle -- nose down immediately and select landing spot. those
>>were done from 100 to 300 agl and I would not try a 180 on take off.
>
> No, I wouldn't either, certainly not for practice. That's why I've
> redlined my 180 at 500' unless there's an unobstructed parallel taxiway or
> something. I can just see my pulling a right 180 to the taxiway at Ramona
> and T-boning the tower! Might hurt a bit. . .
>
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
>
> Do not archive
>
>
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
To anyone just now joining the conversation.... You must read the original post "Do the math..... http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=17173
I would like to be directed to a definition of "maximum take off weight" as found
in the FAR's or any regulatory publication as many here believe there is. There
is only one., and it is included in and located at page 44793 of
Federal Register
Certification of Aircraft and Airman for the Operation of Light-Sport aircraft;
Final Rule. Dated July 27, 2004. This is it verbatium.
"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)."
(repeated from original post, my OWN words...)
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.
--------
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=71795#71795
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: | Water Skiing and Flying |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Nick Scholtes <Nick@Scholtes1.com>
KitFoxers,
I've been monitoring this list as I search for a KitFox to buy. I'm
getting closer, and hope to have one in a week or two!
Sorry for the slightly off-KitFox topic, but regarding water skiing and
flying......
My "other" hobby is flying a Powered ParaGlider. Been doing it for
about 14 years, since about when it started.
Anyway, in case anybody is interested, here's a video of me waterskiing
on the PPG! It was fun!
Now back to your regularly scheduled program........
Nick Scholtes
>Time: 01:01:15 AM PST US
>From: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: | Water Skiing and Flying, oops, here's the link |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Nick Scholtes <Nick@Scholtes1.com>
Uh, I suppose you want the link......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGMq0nv6SuM
Nick
KitFoxers,
I've been monitoring this list as I search for a KitFox to buy. I'm
getting closer, and hope to have one in a week or two!
Sorry for the slightly off-KitFox topic, but regarding water skiing and
flying......
My "other" hobby is flying a Powered ParaGlider. Been doing it for
about 14 years, since about when it started.
Anyway, in case anybody is interested, here's a video of me waterskiing
on the PPG! It was fun!
Now back to your regularly scheduled program........
Nick Scholtes
>Time: 01:01:15 AM PST US
>From: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@kc.rr.com>
The radio has not been droped and appears to work perfectly away from the
plane.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 8:42 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: radio problem
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
I just noticed the 6in. part of your post. That makes me think I was all
wet about the parasitic causing a high SWR. I assume you are using only the
"Rubber Ducky" antenna.
Try grounding the case of the radio around the outside of the BNC connector
(antenna connector) or any other convenient grounding point on the radio, to
the frame of the plane.
If that doesn't work try the remote antenna and let us know if that corrects
the problem.
I'm not sure why but now I'm suspecting something out of kilter ( a wire off
somewhere) in your radio. Has the radio been dropped?
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> kurt schrader
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 8:48 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 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 |
|
I did just install a narco xponder and encoder that are not wired up yet (
mounted in plane with no wires hooked up yet ) I thought of that and slid
the Xponder out. The radio still did the same thing. I did not remove the
encoder. Do you think that might be causing the problem?
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 8:18 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: radio problem
My guess is there has been a piece of something metal, not grounded about
18-20" long in your cockpit that is acting as a parasitic element and
causing a high SWR on your antenna. If you can find that ( probably wire
but could be something like a windshield support ) ground it. Circuits in
your radio are protecting your output transistors by shutting the radio
down. you could try an external antenna... just make sure the base of the
antenna is well grounded.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 7:13 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?
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@kc.rr.com>
I do use a garmen pilot 4 but it is not installed now
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dave
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: radio problem
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Kirk,
Do you have a GPS ?
If so they can play havoc on certain freq.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@kc.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 7:39 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: radio problem
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@kc.rr.com>
>
> I will have to get a wire but I will try that and let you know. This is
> just
> weird. It works great everywhere else just not in the plane. Even with
> the
> engine and master off.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt schrader
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:18 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Kirk/Noel,
Noel! Good shot. This is what I was thinking on my
origional post too. Try the external antenna away
from the aircraft to see if it works. Then with the
radio in the same place, move the antenna (2 people
reqd) toward the plane and see if it stops. If so,
Noel is right. As he said, install a well grounded
seperate antenna.
Maybe after all else is installed and properly
grounded the radio will work again on the origional
antenna.
If not, next guess?
Kurt S.
> My guess is there has been a piece of something
> metal, not grounded about
> 18-20" long in your cockpit that is acting as a
> parasitic element and
> causing a high SWR on your antenna. If you can find
> that ( probably wire
> but could be something like a windshield support )
> ground it. Circuits in
> your radio are protecting your output transistors by
> shutting the radio
> down. you could try an external antenna... just
> make sure the base of the antenna is well grounded.
> Noel
Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the New Yahoo.com
(http://www.yahoo.com/preview)
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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 |
|
No the transponder and encoder are both grounded to the frame of the
airplane.
Something in the plane is causing your outgoing transmission to be
reflected
back into your antenna so the transmitter works harder to put out a
signal.
Another circuit in your radio monitors how hard the transmitter section
is
working. It tells the transmitter it's working too hard and and may die
if
it continues to work too hard.....your transmitter shuts down
(transmitters
usually do what they are told).
You have to find out how the signal is getting back into the output
circuit.
There are basically two ways.
1. Something in your plane is resonating with your out going signal and
reflecting it back into the antenna effectively creating an RF dam in
your
antenna and just like a water dam it causes pressure to build up behind
the
dam ( antenna ) In this case the pressure causes the finals of your
transmitter to work harder and heat up to the point where protection
circuits shut it down. The disconnected wires of your transponder
coiled up
under your dash could be the cause. If they are, the problem will
disappear
as soon as the wires are installed and trimmed to length.
2. Radio Frequency waves (RF) some how is being reflected by something
in
your cockpit and is able to penetrate the circuits of your radio. this
is
known as RF feed back. Some times you will hear a squeal as the feed
back
starts to gain in intensity. Radios are designed to be protected from
RF
feedback but sometimes bonding wires between circuit boards do get
broken
and problems with RF feed back arise. If you try a remote ( external )
antenna more than 3' from your radio and the problem goes away RF feed
back
may have been your problem and an external antenna the easiest fix.
Noel
Best of luck!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 1:29 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: radio problem
I did just install a narco xponder and encoder that are not wired up yet
(
mounted in plane with no wires hooked up yet ) I thought of that and
slid
the Xponder out. The radio still did the same thing. I did not remove
the
encoder. Do you think that might be causing the problem?
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 8:18 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: radio problem
My guess is there has been a piece of something metal, not grounded
about
18-20" long in your cockpit that is acting as a parasitic element and
causing a high SWR on your antenna. If you can find that ( probably
wire
but could be something like a windshield support ) ground it. Circuits
in
your radio are protecting your output transistors by shutting the radio
down. you could try an external antenna... just make sure the base of
the
antenna is well grounded.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 7:13 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?
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
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 |
|
THANKS I HAVE SOME THINGS TO TRY
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 12:31 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: radio problem
No the transponder and encoder are both grounded to the frame of the
airplane.
Something in the plane is causing your outgoing transmission to be reflected
back into your antenna so the transmitter works harder to put out a signal.
Another circuit in your radio monitors how hard the transmitter section is
working. It tells the transmitter it's working too hard and and may die if
it continues to work too hard.....your transmitter shuts down (transmitters
usually do what they are told).
You have to find out how the signal is getting back into the output circuit.
There are basically two ways.
1. Something in your plane is resonating with your out going signal and
reflecting it back into the antenna effectively creating an RF dam in your
antenna and just like a water dam it causes pressure to build up behind the
dam ( antenna ) In this case the pressure causes the finals of your
transmitter to work harder and heat up to the point where protection
circuits shut it down. The disconnected wires of your transponder coiled up
under your dash could be the cause. If they are, the problem will disappear
as soon as the wires are installed and trimmed to length.
2. Radio Frequency waves (RF) some how is being reflected by something in
your cockpit and is able to penetrate the circuits of your radio. this is
known as RF feed back. Some times you will hear a squeal as the feed back
starts to gain in intensity. Radios are designed to be protected from RF
feedback but sometimes bonding wires between circuit boards do get broken
and problems with RF feed back arise. If you try a remote ( external )
antenna more than 3' from your radio and the problem goes away RF feed back
may have been your problem and an external antenna the easiest fix.
Noel
Best of luck!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 1:29 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: radio problem
I did just install a narco xponder and encoder that are not wired up yet (
mounted in plane with no wires hooked up yet ) I thought of that and slid
the Xponder out. The radio still did the same thing. I did not remove the
encoder. Do you think that might be causing the problem?
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 8:18 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: radio problem
My guess is there has been a piece of something metal, not grounded about
18-20" long in your cockpit that is acting as a parasitic element and
causing a high SWR on your antenna. If you can find that ( probably wire
but could be something like a windshield support ) ground it. Circuits in
your radio are protecting your output transistors by shutting the radio
down. you could try an external antenna... just make sure the base of the
antenna is well grounded.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 7:13 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?
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
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 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
You could certify a Model 7 with a max gross weight of 1320 pounds. Once the plane
is certified, the gross weight can't be modified. If a Private Pilot later
buys the plane, gross weight will remain at 1320 pounds, and it won't matter
that the plane was designed for a higher max gross weight. This could lower
the value of your plane, specially for non-sport pilot prospects.
If you fly that plane at 1550 pounds, you know that the plane was designed for
that weight, but it will be illegal.
Jose
----- Original Message ----
From: ron schick <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2006 2:17:06 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
Yes you would, because the "maximum takeoff weight " (for land) is 1320lbs.
One has to load the aircraft correctly to remain in accordance with the definition
of " Maximum takeoff weight" So what if the aircraft will lift 1500 lbs???
Keep the total weight of (1). (2), (3) and (4) at or below 1320 and go fly.
--------
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=71852#71852
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
I do not follow sport pilot stuff but what is advantage to this class?
I always thought a N numbers home built was fine ? Or was there
limitations?
Can a private pilot not fly one just fine ?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:03 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff
wei
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
>
> Yes you would, because the "maximum takeoff weight " (for land) is
> 1320lbs.
> One has to load the aircraft correctly to remain in accordance with the
> definition of " Maximum takeoff weight" So what if the aircraft will lift
> 1500 lbs???
> Keep the total weight of (1). (2), (3) and (4) at or below 1320 and go
> fly.
>
> --------
> 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=71852#71852
>
>
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: | "maximum takeoff weight" Page by page |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
Here is why , page by page
The format emphasis of certain parts is my own
On page 44744 of the
Federal Register/ Vol. 69, No. 143/ Tuesday, July 27, 2004/rules and Regulations
III.2. Summery of Significant Issues Raised By Commenters.
Significant issues raised by commenters are listed below, with reference to the
corresponding proposal. These issues account for approximately 80 percent of
the comments. They, and other comments on the NPRM, are discussed in detail under
V. Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments and Changes Incorporated Into
the Final Rule.
Towing: 1,298 comments
a. Prohibition of towing of hangliders and paragliders by ultralight pilots; part
103--691 comments
b. Prohibition of towing of hangliders and paragliders by light-sport aircraft;
SFAR No. 89 section 73(b)(12)--607 comments
Section 1.1 definition of light-sport aircraft--122 comments
Maximum weight limits for light-sport aircraft; 1.1 definition of light-sport
aircraft paragraph (1)--489 comments
Next, on page 44791 of the
Federal Register/ Vol. 69, No. 143/ Tuesday, July 27, 2004/rules and Regulations
Definition of Light-sport aircraft
Overview
The FAA believes that there might be confusion concerning what airworthiness certificates
apply to light-sport aircraft. Therefore, the FAA is clarifying this
issue. A sport pilot may operate any aircraft that meets the definition in 1.1
of a light-sport aircraft, regardless of the airworthiness certificate issued
for the aircraft. An aircraft that meets the light-sport aircraft definition
may have any airworthiness certificate that may be issued for an aircraft, such
as standard, special, primary, or experimental amateur-built aircraft. An
aircraft that meets the light-sport aircraft definition and holds a standard airworthiness
certificate must be operated and maintained in accordance with the
limitations of that airworthiness certificate. For example, the sport pilot
must operate the aircraft within the limits of the aircrafts flight manual and
type certificate data sheet. Also, maintenance will still need to be done in
accordance with part 43 by an appropriately rated mechanic, repairman, or repair
station. A repairman (light-sport aircraft) is not authorized to conduct any
maintenance on an aircraft issued a standard airworthiness certificate or a
special airworthiness certificate in a category other than light-sport.
On to page 44792
General Comments on the Design Attributes in the Light-Sport Aircraft Definition
There was considerable interest in changing the design attributes that control
the definition of light-sport aircraft. The FAA received numerous general questions
and comments on aircraft currently certificated. Some commenters operating
aircraft with a standard or an experimental certificate stated that their aircraft
nearly met the definition of light-sport aircraft. Many of these commenters
expressed their desire that the light-sport aircraft definition be changed
to include their aircraft, whether it be an airplane with a standard airworthiness
certificate, an amateur-built aircraft, or a vintage aircraft with a standard
airworthiness certificate. Several commenters stated a desire that the
FAA revise the light-sport aircraft definition to permit them to obtain the perceived
advantages of the sport pilot certificates medical provisions when operating
their aircraft.
Commenters also requested clarification as to how compliance with some of the parameters
used to define light-sport aircraft will be determined. The most frequently
cited parameters were maximum takeoff weight, maximum airspeed in level
flight with maximum continuous power VH, and stall speeds VS1 (without lift
enhancing devices) and VS0 (landing configuration). As discussed under 1.1, the
consensus standards will address details on methods of demonstrating compliance.
Also on 44792
Modifications of Aircraft to Meet the Light-Sport Aircraft Definition
Some commenters stated that aircraft with quite high payload and performance characteristics
that far exceed the stated definition of light-sport aircraft could
be modified to meet the definition of light-sport aircraft. The FAA has revised
the definition of light-sport aircraft in the rule to prevent these modifications.
The FAA notes that these types of modified aircraft are outside the
stated purpose of the proposal. The proposal identified light-sport aircraft
as aircraft that exceed the limits set in 103.1, and are compatible with the skills
and training required to obtain a sport pilot certificate. Light-sport aircraft
are simple low-performance aircraft that are distinct from small aircraft
that can be designed and built to existing airworthiness standards. In the
proposal, the FAA permitted sport pilots to fly any aircraft that meets the light-sport
aircraft definition. In prohibiting modifications to aircraft to meet
the light-sport aircraft definition, the FAA seeks to ensure that the light-sport
aircraft operating characteristics are consistent with the skills and training
for the sport pilot. The FAA is concerned that modifications to an aircraft
to meet the light-sport aircraft definition may increase its complexity
to a level that is inappropriate for the capabilities of the sport pilot. This
is the FAAs rationale for excluding these modified aircraft from the light-sport
aircraft definition.
So, on page 44793
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. [i]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). [/i]
This IS the definition maximum takeoff weight The FAA big guy just said so. It
is a formula to use, to be applied to, a specific loaded aircraft at the time
of takeoff to determine if it meets the first parameter : (1) A maximum takeoff
weight of not more than
FAR 1.1 1.1 General definitions.
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.
And... my Series 5 has NOT been modified in order to be able to to meet the definition
since the airworthiness was issued.
The document may by found here.
http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=287882&docketid=11133
Every single document involving the new regulation is available here:
http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=11133&searchType=docket
Not all copies or downloads include the register page number but the writing is
the same. To ease in locating pages use a copy as published.
--------
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=71856#71856
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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 |
|
Kirk
Assuming that you have eliminated your antenna as the cause. Have you done
an antenna VSWR from in the acrft using your problem radio?? Do this ---
wrap the entire radio in normal household aluminum and ground the whole
package and see if it still fails. You can push the press to talk through
the foil wrap. Make sure that the entire handheld is wrapped and tightly
twisted at the antenna cable and DC power lead ins. This is to prove whether
the interference is airborne (radiated) or whether it is coming in on the DC
power leads??? I am assuming you are hooked to your 12VDC arcft system? If
it's radiated or DC power interference ---- then shut off all other
electrical and experiment by turning additional electronic/electrical
systems on --- one at a time till you hit on the offending culprit
In my view there are only 3 things that can cause this problem. !. Antenna,
2. Radiated interference 3 DC power source interference.
Of course this being Halloween any of a thousand other gremlins could be in
your unit.
Regards --- Ted
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
Sent: November 2, 2006 5:54 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: radio problem
I have been using the same antenna inside and outside the aircraft. If I
hold down the transmit button outside the aircraft it will transmit then if
I move the radio toward the aircraft it will stop transmitting at about 6
inches of any metal part of the plane. It works fine in the car.
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ted Palamarek
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: radio problem
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 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: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
To raise an old thread from not to long ago....My old instructor (also a top
notch aeronautical Engineer) just did a test on some 10% Ethanol fuel from
the local gas station. He took 10 parts gasoline (assuming 1 part ethanol)
and mixed with 2 parts water in a calibrated container. According to him,
within seconds, the water/ethanol formed a cloudy mixture at the bottom of
the container. I asked this once before about making some sort of rig that
would simply remove the 10% ethanol through phase separation. Any new
thoughts on this?
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob" <dswaim1119@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 9:23 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob" <dswaim1119@comcast.net>
>
> It's more than the South, as can be seen in the following link:
> http://www.cleanfuelsdc.org/info/images/Map.gif
> In nearly all of Maryland, we're stuck with roughly $4/gallon avgas
> because the ethanol additives are all that's now used in $2.20 mogas. All
> of our auto-gas STC's are effectively useless. A number of other states
> are in the same boat. This was a poorly applied political decree, as the
> alchohol isn't produced near here, so the benefits are negative. :(
> Bob
>
> --------
> Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71756#71756
>
>
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: Water Skiing and Flying, oops, here's the link |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard Rabbers" <rira1950@yahoo.com>
Nick,
It looks like you know how to have fun.
I always thought one of those backpack chutes would be fun.
I figure it would be a good item to pack for a vacation be great to do some aerial
exploring. Maybe a little combersome as luggage.
Thanks for sharing.
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=71878#71878
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Flaperons and wing folding |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "rudderdancer" <jhenryhall@mac.com>
I posted earlier about a problem I'm having with the flaperons dragging on the
turtledeck and bearing support. I did post pictures there, but maybe again here
would help. Can anyone send me a picture of what the bearing
guide should look like? That would help me aviod having to reinvent. I think
I have an idea, but I could really use the assembled expertise here on this forum.
By the way, if any Kitfox drivers every find themselves stuck in the Victorville
area here in California, don't hesitate to give a call for help. It's
still awfully desolate in this desert. I'll be sure my phone numbers are in
my profile.
Regards,
Jack
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71899#71899
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/flaperon_topview_739.jpg
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Need a floating ball for fuel quantity sight tube |
I tried using balls from an antifreeze tester. They won't float. Gas is
much lighter then water and it takes a heavier then water liquid to make
the tester ball float, (which antifreeze is heavier then water). I would
be interested if anyone else has been successful in finding something
that would float in the sight tubes.
Jerry Kohles M3 912UL
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Crowder
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
11/01/2006
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I am using only the radio with the antenna it came with. No external power
and nothing in the plane is turned on / engine off and master off
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ted Palamarek
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:34 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: radio problem
Kirk
Assuming that you have eliminated your antenna as the cause. Have you done
an antenna VSWR from in the acrft using your problem radio?? Do this ---
wrap the entire radio in normal household aluminum and ground the whole
package and see if it still fails. You can push the press to talk through
the foil wrap. Make sure that the entire handheld is wrapped and tightly
twisted at the antenna cable and DC power lead ins. This is to prove whether
the interference is airborne (radiated) or whether it is coming in on the DC
power leads??? I am assuming you are hooked to your 12VDC arcft system? If
it's radiated or DC power interference ---- then shut off all other
electrical and experiment by turning additional electronic/electrical
systems on --- one at a time till you hit on the offending culprit
In my view there are only 3 things that can cause this problem. !. Antenna,
2. Radiated interference 3 DC power source interference.
Of course this being Halloween any of a thousand other gremlins could be in
your unit.
Regards --- Ted
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
Sent: November 2, 2006 5:54 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: radio problem
I have been using the same antenna inside and outside the aircraft. If I
hold down the transmit button outside the aircraft it will transmit then if
I move the radio toward the aircraft it will stop transmitting at about 6
inches of any metal part of the plane. It works fine in the car.
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ted Palamarek
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: radio problem
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?
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Kirk
Do I understand you correctly in that you are inside the airplane trying to
transmit with the rubber duck antenna that came with the ICOM when the
problem occurred??? If that is the case, the metal frame and other metal
components may be acting as a screen or reradiating and causing a high VSWR
and shutting down the TX power amplifier. If the above is true, you need to
use and external antenna fed with a coax to avoid that situation. This way
you put the RF field outside the metal structure of the aircraft.
I am a Ham Radio operator and operate my 2 meter rig out of my stucco
garage. Of course being stucco there is mesh wire surrounding the garage
(somewhat akin to the metal aircraft fuselage) and I have found that the
placement of the antenna in the garage greatly affects the RF power out and
the VSWR. The 2 meter frequency is just a little higher than the air to
ground band.
Ted
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
Sent: November 2, 2006 8:31 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: radio problem
I am using only the radio with the antenna it came with. No external power
and nothing in the plane is turned on / engine off and master off
_____
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Need a floating ball for fuel quantity sight tube |
First I tried the antifreeze balls and learned they don't float. Next I
used balsa wood balls, painted in fuel proof dope from the hobby store.
They worked for a few months, but eventually the fuel must have gotten t
hrough the paint and the balsa wood lost its bouyancy. Since then, I hav
e gone without, but have a new idea I'd like to try. Why not grab and ol
d carburetor float out of a floatbowl and carve a little ball out of tha
t material? Whatever that material is, it floats inside of our carbureto
rs.
Rex in Michigan
-- "neflyer48" <neflyer48@cableone.net> wrote:
I tried using balls from an antifreeze tester. They won't float. Gas is
much lighter then water and it takes a heavier then water liquid to make
the tester ball float, (which antifreeze is heavier then water). I woul
d be interested if anyone else has been successful in finding something
that would float in the sight tubes. Jerry Kohles M3 912UL ----- Origina
l Message ----- From: Jim Crowder To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Sent: We
dnesday, November 01, 2006 9:03 PMSubject: Re: Kitfox-List: Need a float
ing ball for fuel quantity sight tube
Joe,
Some have used one of the balls from an antifreeze tester that uses a bu
nch 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
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matro
nDate: 11/01/2006
========================
========================
========================
========================
======================
<html><P>First I tried the antifreeze balls and learned they don't float
. Next I used balsa wood balls, painted in fuel proof dope from the hobb
y store. They worked for a few months, but eventually the fuel must have
gotten through the paint and the balsa wood lost its bouyancy. Since th
en, I have gone without, but have a new idea I'd like to try. Why not gr
ab and old carburetor float out of a floatbowl and carve a little ball o
ut of that material? Whatever that material is, it floats inside of
our carburetors. </P>
<P>Rex in Michigan<BR><BR>-- "neflyer48" <neflyer48@cableon
e.net> wrote:<BR></P>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I tried using balls from an antifreeze
tester. They won't float. Gas is much lighter then water and it takes a
heavier then water liquid to make the tester ball float, (which&nbs
p;antifreeze is heavier then water). I would be interested if anyone els
e has been successful in finding something that would float in the sight
tubes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jerry Kohles M3 912UL</FONT> </DIV
>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT:
5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">
<B>From:</B> <A title=jimlc@att.net href="mailto:jimlc@att.net">Jim
Crowder</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=kitfox-list@matron
ics.com href="mailto:kitfox-list@matronics.com">kitfox-list@matronics.
com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, November 01, 200
6 9:03 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Kitfox-List: Need a
floating ball for fuel quantity sight tube</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Joe,<BR>Some have used one of the balls from an antifreez
e tester that uses a bunch of colored balls to indicate freezing level.<
BR><BR>Jim Crowder<BR><BR>At 07:30 PM 11/1/2006, you wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT size=2>Hi Guys,
<BR></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>I use a piece of clear fuel tubing l
ooped between the top<BR>and bottom fittings of my wing tanks. Ins
ide the tube at<BR>the top and bottom is a spring to prevent the tube fr
om<BR>kinking. I would like to add a floating ball to help me bett
er<BR>locate the fuel level. (I'm in the tri-focal generation.)&nb
sp; What<BR>would you recommend that would not dissolve? I can ben
d<BR>the end of each spring to keep the ball out of the tank...<BR></FON
T> <BR><FONT size=2>Thanks,<BR></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>Jo
e Connell<BR>Stewartville, MN<BR>Kitfox-II N62JK<BR></FONT><BR></BLOCKQU
OTE><BR><PRE><B><FONT face="courier new,courier" color=#000000 size=
2>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.ma
tron
</B></FONT></PRE>
<P>
<HR>
er" color=#000000 size=2>
========================
===========
========================
===========
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List</A>
========================
===========
</B></FONT></PRE>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
One last original post on the topic.
Here is a good site (AOPA) to download the Final Rule in pdf format that will
appear in Adobe just as it is in paper copy, including page numbers. I recommend
it , for what thats worth.
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_faq.html
Lets see what The Man Himself is doing
Go here an check out these specifications:
http://kitfoxaircraft.com/SS%20Specs.htm
Fuel Capacity 27 Gallons Standard
Seats 2 - Side by Side
Baggage Capacity 150 lbs
Flight Load Limits +3.8g / -1.52
(+150% Safety Factor) Ultimate loads +6g / -3g
Empty Weight 750 lbs
Useful Load 800 Lbs
Cargo Area 10 ft
Cargo Load 150 Lbs
Gross Weight
1320 on Gear
1430 on Floats
1550 optional gear
Read these also:
http://kitfoxaircraft.com/FAQ.htm#2
Does the Kitfox qualify for Light Sport Aircraft (LSA)?
Absolutely ! The current Kitfox can be operated at the 1320 lb gross weight when
on gear and the 1420 lb gross when on floats. It can also be converted from
floats, to skis, to tail wheel or to Tricycle gear.. Your choice.
What is the gross weight of a Kitfox?
The current Kitfox has been structurally tested at 1550 lbs gross weight at +6g
and -3g Load Limit. With an empty weight of 750 lbs, it can easily be operated
within the LSA limit of 1320 lb gross with a 570 lb or better useful load. Not
concerned about LSA? Use the full 1550 lb gross weight limit and have an 800
lb useful load. (my italics)
Now,
The useful load of 570 is what is left for full fuel, 2 passengers, and the unspecified
required baggage allowance (baggage) after you have a planned for an
airframeengine combined weight (empty weight, as used here) of 750 LBS. Its
a design consideration that anyone who is contemplating certification of SLSA
and ELSA aircraft must consider. Do you want the aircraft to carry lot of fuel
lbs or cargobaggage lbs..
Since you need both seats filled, (2 x 180 = 360 lbs,
And say a 25lb baggage load you now have 380 lbs of weight in the aircraft
Add that to a projected empty weight of 750 lbs the total aircraft weight is 1135
lbs.
Subtract that from 1320 and you could have up to 185 lbs of fuel, (full tanks)
which is around 30 US gals.. That Kitfox only has 27 gal. so the max possible
fuel weight is 162 lbs.
Maximum takeoff weight is the sum of:
(1) Empty weight 750
(2) full seats 369
(3) Baggage 25
(4) Full fuel 162
Total 1297 lbs. Which is less than 1320 lbs maximum takeoff
weight, hence it is eligible for sport pilot use.
You have now been directed to 2 excellent references where the term maximum
takeoff weight is being properly, and legally, applied.
http://kitfoxaircraft.com/SS%20Specs.htm
And
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12int.htm
Notice the specifications for Empty Weight and Useful Load,
Empty Weight 750 lbs
Useful Load 800 Lbs
That totals ???? 1550lbs. The design max. weight
The lower gross weight is used for certification issues of ELSA and SLSA and
the same aircraft would have a experimental-homebuilt AW cert. if it was manufactured
(built) by someone under the 51% rule with up to 1550lb. max weight (or
even greater) W&B paperwork. . The design limit is still 1550 lbs, and can
safely and legally be flown up to that weight (with an experimental-homebuilt
AW cert) under Private pilot privileges.
That gives this design a favorable and marketable flexibility that, unfortunately
is not understood by, or properly communicated to, the flying community.
There are advantages and privileges associated with ELSA and SLSA which is
a reason to have the aircraft certified as such. That is another story.
There is nothing wrong with the regulations, or the Final Rule, except for the
complexity which is necessary to address all the issues and, if you read it,
you will see that they (the FAA) actually apologize for that.
The intention and function of Final Rule:
14 CFR Parts 1, 21, et al.
Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for
the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft;
Final Rule
is to, and very effectively does,
1) regulate certification and maintenance of SLSA ESLA aircraft, sport pilots,
and
(2) regulate the physical modification of aircraft with TCDSs attempting to meet
the definition of maximum takeoff weight.
We have made our own problems by referring to mis-information being published
and proclaimed by those we trust and rely on to remain legal and stay informed.
I must repeat, there is nothing incorrect in the FAA Rules and Regulations, and
I have never stated there is. Its a beautiful and interesting piece of work
if you start at the beginning and go with the flow quit trying to swim upstream.
Steve
--------
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=71938#71938
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Water Skiing and Flying, oops, here's the link |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard D'Archangel" <rdarchangel@earthlink.net>
Very cool, Nick. Thanks
Nick Scholtes wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Nick Scholtes <Nick@Scholtes1.com>
>
> Uh, I suppose you want the link......
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGMq0nv6SuM
>
>
> Nick
>
>
> KitFoxers,
>
> I've been monitoring this list as I search for a KitFox to buy. I'm
> getting closer, and hope to have one in a week or two!
>
> Sorry for the slightly off-KitFox topic, but regarding water skiing and
> flying......
>
> My "other" hobby is flying a Powered ParaGlider. Been doing it for
> about 14 years, since about when it started.
>
> Anyway, in case anybody is interested, here's a video of me waterskiing
> on the PPG! It was fun!
>
> Now back to your regularly scheduled program........
>
> Nick Scholtes
>
>
>> Time: 01:01:15 AM PST US
>> From: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 45
| 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: | My Kitfox trailer |
Here is the trailer I built for my Fox from a boat trailer. I remember a
fellow asking about trailers a week or so ago.
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! --
|