Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:56 AM - Re: Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (Lynn Matteson)
2. 05:33 AM - Re: Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (dave)
3. 05:36 AM - Re: Ethanol (Bob)
4. 06:06 AM - Re: Ethanol (Noel Loveys)
5. 06:06 AM - Re: Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (Lynn Matteson)
6. 06:58 AM - Re: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case. (floran higgins)
7. 07:01 AM - Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (84KF)
8. 07:24 AM - Re: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case. (84KF)
9. 07:26 AM - Re: Flaperons and wing folding (Tom Jones)
10. 07:29 AM - Re: Flaperons and wing folding (Tom Jones)
11. 07:40 AM - Re: My Kitfox trailer (Tom Jones)
12. 10:05 AM - Re: Re: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case. (Lowell Fitt)
13. 10:06 AM - wing root fuel gauges (Jacques Voynaud)
14. 10:07 AM - Have You Tried The New Matronics List Forum? (Matt Dralle)
15. 10:14 AM - Re: Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei (Lynn Matteson)
16. 10:39 AM - Re: radio problemradio problem (George Wells@adelphia.net)
17. 10:44 AM - Re: wing root fuel gauges (Lynn Matteson)
18. 11:03 AM - Re: radio problemradio problem (Rueb, Duane)
19. 11:16 AM - Re: radio problemradio problem (Guy Buchanan)
20. 11:34 AM - Re: Re: Ethanol (Don Smythe)
21. 12:58 PM - Re: radio problemradio problem (Rueb, Duane)
22. 01:59 PM - Re: radio problemradio problem (Barry West)
23. 02:27 PM - Re: radio problemradio problem (Dave and Diane)
24. 02:42 PM - Re: radio problemradio problem (dave)
25. 04:10 PM - Kitplanes Magazine question (Lynn Matteson)
26. 04:21 PM - Re: radio problemradio problem (Noel Loveys)
27. 04:27 PM - Re: radio problemradio problem (Noel Loveys)
28. 04:46 PM - Re: radio problemradio problem (Noel Loveys)
29. 05:50 PM - Re: Still Learning (Jerry Liles)
30. 08:41 PM - Re: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case. (84KF)
31. 09:00 PM - Re: Kitplanes Magazine question (jimcarriere)
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: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
The advantage to being a Sport Pilot (SP) is that you don't need a 3rd
class medical to qualify to fly as a SP...all you need is a valid
state-issued driver's license. If you think that you may flunk your
next medical for your Private Pilot (PP) license, let your PP license
lapse, and fly as a SP, but only in an LSA airplane. If you have been
denied your PP due to flunking your last medical, you have to get that
resolved, then you can get your PP license reinstated, and after it is
reinstated, you can, of course, fly as a PP, but at the next renewal,
let the PP lapse and fly as an SP...but ONLY in an LSA-type airplane.
Now the catch...you can only fly a plane that qualifies as a Light
Sport Aircraft (LSA), which must meet several criteria, such as the
maximum gross weight that has been mentioned here lately, of 1320 gross
pounds, or 1430 pounds if it is a float plane.
Having the SP license, or flying *AS* an SP, means you cannot fly at
night, or over 10,000' MSL altitude, or in a retractable-gear
plane....only in a plane that meets the aforementioned LSA rules and
limitations.
Yes, a PP can fly one, and fly one at night, and over 10,000' MSL, etc.
Lynn
On Thursday, November 2, 2006, at 03:16 PM, dave wrote:
> --> 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>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> 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 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Thanks Lynn, that really cleared up allot.
So basically a LSA pilot can fly any wheel plane up to 1320.
I used to get a Cat 1 medical when I was commercial but after I turned 40
I went to cat 3 medical with only Private pilot privileges now or I would
have to get every 6 months I think done.
Now I get medical every 2 years which is not bad and a drivers medical for
me is every 3 years with testing every 5 year due to my license.
Hey by the way -- It getting colder out and how if your pot scrubber heater
working?
Snow not too far away , are you a ski flyer ?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum
takeoff wei
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> The advantage to being a Sport Pilot (SP) is that you don't need a 3rd
> class medical to qualify to fly as a SP...all you need is a valid
> state-issued driver's license. If you think that you may flunk your next
> medical for your Private Pilot (PP) license, let your PP license lapse,
> and fly as a SP, but only in an LSA airplane. If you have been denied your
> PP due to flunking your last medical, you have to get that resolved, then
> you can get your PP license reinstated, and after it is reinstated, you
> can, of course, fly as a PP, but at the next renewal, let the PP lapse and
> fly as an SP...but ONLY in an LSA-type airplane.
>
> Now the catch...you can only fly a plane that qualifies as a Light Sport
> Aircraft (LSA), which must meet several criteria, such as the maximum
> gross weight that has been mentioned here lately, of 1320 gross pounds, or
> 1430 pounds if it is a float plane.
> Having the SP license, or flying *AS* an SP, means you cannot fly at
> night, or over 10,000' MSL altitude, or in a retractable-gear
> plane....only in a plane that meets the aforementioned LSA rules and
> limitations.
>
> Yes, a PP can fly one, and fly one at night, and over 10,000' MSL, etc.
>
> Lynn
> On Thursday, November 2, 2006, at 03:16 PM, dave wrote:
>
>> --> 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>
>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>> 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 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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob" <dswaim1119@comcast.net>
The problem is that the ethanol is there with it's own job - to replace the MTBE.
Theoretically, you could do what you propose, IF you can determine how precisely
much ethanol you are taking out, make sure you got all the water back out,
have the replacement on hand, determine the equivalent amount of replacement,
and then mix the replacement uniformly through your fuel.
Bob
--------
Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71966#71966
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Ethanol has a much greater affinity to form a solution with water than it
does with gasoline. Therefore all you have to do to remove ethanol form
gasoline is "wash" it with a bit of water. In other words add water to the
gas, mix and let settle for about twenty minutes. The water ethanol
solution will be on the bottom and the gas will be on the top. If you use
something like a tank with a sump and a spigot on the bottom all you have to
do is drain off the water ethanol before draining off the gas.
There may be a reasons not to do this. Ethanol increases the octane rating
of gas ( a couple of points ) and there are other additives in the gas that
washing may remove.
There was a fellow on another list who operated a boat (out of New York I
think ) that had fibreglass tanks moulded into the hull. He started washing
his fuel several years ago and has no problem with his fuel tanks/hull
disintegrating and no problems with the engine either.
The down sides to gas washing is what do you do with the water ethanol
solution after removing it from the gas? And will every FBO from here to
Tim Buk Tu have the equipment to separate ethanol?
I hope in five or six years when the financial and physical reality of
ethanol as a viable fuel is proven and there will be a lot of very cheap
booze on the market.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Don Smythe
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 6:51 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Ethanol
>
>
> --> 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>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> 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 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: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Yes, any wheel plane up to 1320, as long as it's "maximum straight and
level flight speed at max continuous power does not exceed 120 knots"
....that last part is from memory, and mine is kinda sluggish some
days. : )
Interesting thing about the pot scrubber heater....I have removed the
aluminum scrubbers from the one side that had them, and replaced with
stainless steel. Now both sides (one heater muff on each front-side
exhaust pipe on Jabiru 2200 engine) have the stainless steel pot
scrubbers installed to pick up heat from exhaust pipe. After this mod,
I went for a flight on a 32 F (or so) day, and the heater seemed to be
working VERY well...so well that I shut one cabin heater off. It was
still VERY comfortable, so I shut the other one off. Then I noticed
that the OAT was reading 59 F. I thought that the OAT was faulty, and
I was going to have to look into that. Apparently there was some kind
of temperature inversion going on, and it was actually 59F at about
3000' altitude. So my test was inconclusive, and the winds were picking
up and I haven't flown the plane since....windy, rainy, snow yesterday,
and other things going on....nope, not a ski flier...yet.
Lynn
do not archive
On Friday, November 3, 2006, at 08:32 AM, dave wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
>
> Thanks Lynn, that really cleared up allot.
>
> So basically a LSA pilot can fly any wheel plane up to 1320.
>
> I used to get a Cat 1 medical when I was commercial but after I
> turned 40 I went to cat 3 medical with only Private pilot privileges
> now or I would have to get every 6 months I think done.
> Now I get medical every 2 years which is not bad and a drivers
> medical for me is every 3 years with testing every 5 year due to my
> license.
>
> Hey by the way -- It getting colder out and how if your pot scrubber
> heater working?
> Snow not too far away , are you a ski flyer ?
>
>
> Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 7:55 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum
> takeoff wei
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>>
>> The advantage to being a Sport Pilot (SP) is that you don't need a
>> 3rd class medical to qualify to fly as a SP...all you need is a valid
>> state-issued driver's license. If you think that you may flunk your
>> next medical for your Private Pilot (PP) license, let your PP license
>> lapse, and fly as a SP, but only in an LSA airplane. If you have been
>> denied your PP due to flunking your last medical, you have to get
>> that resolved, then you can get your PP license reinstated, and after
>> it is reinstated, you can, of course, fly as a PP, but at the next
>> renewal, let the PP lapse and fly as an SP...but ONLY in an LSA-type
>> airplane.
>>
>> Now the catch...you can only fly a plane that qualifies as a Light
>> Sport Aircraft (LSA), which must meet several criteria, such as the
>> maximum gross weight that has been mentioned here lately, of 1320
>> gross pounds, or 1430 pounds if it is a float plane.
>> Having the SP license, or flying *AS* an SP, means you cannot fly at
>> night, or over 10,000' MSL altitude, or in a retractable-gear
>> plane....only in a plane that meets the aforementioned LSA rules and
>> limitations.
>>
>> Yes, a PP can fly one, and fly one at night, and over 10,000' MSL,
>> etc.
>>
>> Lynn
>> On Thursday, November 2, 2006, at 03:16 PM, dave wrote:
>>
>>> --> 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>
>>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>> 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 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: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "floran higgins" <cliffh@outdrs.net>
Steve
As you continue to beat this dead horse I would suggest that you talk to the
people at your local FAA office and see how they are going to interpet this
regulation.
I have had several disscussion with the local FAA people as I have some
problems with the restrictions on in- flight adjusable props and
rectractable gear as it pertains to us old high time pilots.
They way the local FAA people are enforceing the regs,. is:
Max Certified gross weight 1320 lbs.for land planes. It doesn't matter what
kind of a airplane. A Kit fox, Avid, Piper J-3, Aronica Champ, etc as long
as the certified gross weight is under 1320 lbs.
If you build a model 5 and have it certified with a gross weight of 1320 lbs
then it would be legal for a sport pilot to fly it.
However the gross weight could never be raised later.
If a model 5 was certified with the gross weight of 1550, It cannot have the
gross weight lowered therefore it would never be legal for a sport pilot to
fly it.
Floran H.
----- Original Message -----
From: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:49 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: 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 ?oFinal Rule? in pdf format
that will appear in Adobe just as it is in paper copy, including page
numbers. I recommend it ?, for what that?Ts worth?.
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_faq.html
Let?Ts see what ?oThe 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. It?Ts 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.
?oMaximum 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 ?omaximum
takeoff weight?o, hence it is eligible for sport pilot use.
You have now been directed to 2 excellent references where the term
?omaximum 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
?omanufactured? (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 TCDS?Ts attempting
to meet the definition of ?omaximum 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. It?Ts 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 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: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
Lynn,
Rember to use the term "maximum takeoff weight", not gross weight or anything
else that is undefinable when refering to light-sport aircraft weight issues..
The condition, or, perameter to meet is "gross takeoff weight" and there is
a definition for that and an explanation in the rule of why it, and only it applies
in the definition of "light-sport aircraft".
Page 44793 of
Federal Register/ Vol. 69, No. 143/ Tuesday, July 27, 2004/rules and Regulations:
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).
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=71980#71980
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
PART 61CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND INSTRUCTORS
Subpart EPrivate Pilots
61.103 Eligibility requirements: General.
To be eligible for a private pilot certificate, a person must:
(c) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language
61.305 What are the age and language requirements for a sport pilot certificate?
(a) To be eligible for a sport pilot certificate you must:
(2) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand English.
?
--------
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=71988#71988
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: Flaperons and wing folding |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tom Jones" <nahsikhs@elltel.net>
Jack,
That system looks to be kind of rough on the flapperon when folding the wings.
Attached are two pictures of the Kitfox system. Do these show what you are looking
for?
Tom Jones
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71989#71989
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/flapperon_bearing_hinge_down_119.jpg
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flaperons and wing folding |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tom Jones" <nahsikhs@elltel.net>
Here is the other picture.
Tom Jones
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71990#71990
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/flapperon_bearing_hinge_up_145.jpg
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: My Kitfox trailer |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tom Jones" <nahsikhs@elltel.net>
That is a nice looking trailer. Your pictures are making me want one like that.
I am using a modified snowmobile trailer that has the bed above the wheels.
It works okay but the plane sits up kind of high.
Tom Jones
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71997#71997
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
This is indeed becoming a dead horse. Sort of like one against the world.
A question, though. Steve, are you flying your V as a a LSA?
If so good luck, especially with your liability insurance.
Lowell.
---- Original Message -----
From: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 7:21 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case.
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
>
> PART 61?"CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND
> INSTRUCTORS
> Subpart E?"Private Pilots
>
> 61.103 Eligibility requirements: General.
> To be eligible for a private pilot certificate, a person must:
> (c) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language
>
>
> 61.305 What are the age and language requirements for a sport pilot
> certificate?
>
> (a) To be eligible for a sport pilot certificate you must:
> (2) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand English.
>
>
> ?
>
> --------
> 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=71988#71988
>
>
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | wing root fuel gauges |
Is anyone using the wing root fuel gages sold by sportplane=3F I'm wonderi
ng if there is a need to drill holes in the tank wall to install those=2E
If so, isn't there a possible leak problem, since the wall is quite thin=3F
Any other advise or comments on this equipment would be appreciated=2E
Jack
jacques=2Evoynaud@cegepat=2Eqc=2Eca
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: | Have You Tried The New Matronics List Forum? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Hello Listers,
One of the major new additions to the Matronics Email Lists this year was the addition
of a new and full function Forum Web Site at:
http://forums.matronics.com
The best part of these new Forums is that they are tied directly to the Classic
email distribution Lists! That also means that posts go in both directions.
If you post a message on the Forum web site, it will be cross posted to the respective
Email List. And, if you post a message to a particular Email List,
it will be cross posted to the same respective forum on the Forum site!
So, no matter what your content viewing pleasure is - either direct email distribution
or web-based GUI interface, you can have it at the Matronics Email Lists!
Won't you make a Contribution to support these Lists? It is your SOLE Contributions
that make their continued operation and upgrade possible!
The Contribution site is Fast, Easy, and Secure. Please surf over and make your
Contribution today:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Do the math... Series 5 & 7 vs "maximum takeoff wei |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Thanks, Steve, I'll remember that...
Lynn
do not archive
On Friday, November 3, 2006, at 09:58 AM, 84KF wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
>
> Lynn,
> Rember to use the term "maximum takeoff weight", not gross weight or
> anything else that is undefinable when refering to light-sport
> aircraft weight issues.. The condition, or, perameter to meet is
> "gross takeoff weight" and there is a definition for that and an
> explanation in the rule of why it, and only it applies in the
> definition of "light-sport aircraft".
>
> Page 44793 of
> Federal Register/ Vol. 69, No. 143/ Tuesday, July 27, 2004/rules and
> Regulations:
> 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).
>
> Steve
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: radio problemradio problem |
I have about the same problem but it is with my compass !!
If the compass is located anywhere except above the radio stack it
works fine. If I mount it in the center on the panel cover above the
radio stack the readings go goofey !! This is with the radios powered up
or off ?
Any suggestions for a fix ? I was thinking of a grounded piece of copper
screen above the stack.
Thanks
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wing root fuel gauges |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
I am using them and they work quite well. I have a model IV, and my
fiberglass tanks had the necessary holes already in them, tapped, and
ready to receive the supplied nipples from John and Debra McBean's
Kitfox Aircraft/Sportplane wing root gauge kits. When I installed mine,
all I needed to do was custom fit the printed panels (can't think of
what they're called) to my root rib...a few minutes work with the
Dremel tool.
Lynn
Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
On Friday, November 3, 2006, at 01:05 PM, Jacques Voynaud wrote:
> Is anyone using the wing root fuel gages sold by sportplane? I'm
> wondering if there is a need to drill holes in the tank wall to
> install those. If so, isn't there a possible leak problem, since the
> wall is quite thin? Any other advise or comments on this equipment
> would be appreciated.
>
> Jack
> jacques.voynaud@cegepat.qc.ca
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | radio problemradio problem |
Your problem is most likely an electromagnetic one, and as such, copper
won't help much. You will need to use mu metal, which is a good
magnetic conductor. A radio shop should be able to supply this. Plain
old steel might solve it, and it won't need to be real thick, so try
some thin stuff first, before you do a permanent install.
Remember that the compass is a very sensitive magnetic instrument, so
anything with a permanent magnetic field needs to be as far away from it
as practical, but shielding is the way to keep the field from being a
problem when this cannot be done.
Duane Rueb
________________________________
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of George
Wells@adelphia.net
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: radio problemradio problem
I have about the same problem but it is with my compass !!
If the compass is located anywhere except above the radio stack it
works fine. If I mount it in the center on the panel cover above the
radio stack the readings go goofey !! This is with the radios powered up
or off ?
Any suggestions for a fix ? I was thinking of a grounded piece of copper
screen above the stack.
Thanks
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: radio problemradio problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 10:37 AM 11/3/2006, you wrote:
>Any suggestions for a fix ? I was thinking of a grounded piece of copper
>screen above the stack.
I had this problem and it was caused primarily by the two panel
supports running aft from the windshield cross braces. They were heavily
magnetized. (Apparently arc welding causes the 4130 steel used in our
airframe to magnetize.) I used Sacramento Sky Ranch's rental degauss kit to
degauss the whole area and have had no problems since. I removed my panel
to do it since I wasn't sure whether the avionics would survive the degauss
field.
I never tried shielding. I would ask the AeroElectric list on
Matronics. That's where I've seen the most discussion regarding shielding.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
I don't know anything about gasoline or mbte/ethanol but thought the
questions was worth beating around a little. So, you can possible remove
the ethanol but would have to replace it with something else like mbte???
Correct?? What does mbte or ethanol do to gasoline to make it good/safe for
engines? I guess an engine would not operate correctly with the
mbte/ethanol removed.
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob" <dswaim1119@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 8:35 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Ethanol
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob" <dswaim1119@comcast.net>
>
> The problem is that the ethanol is there with it's own job - to replace
> the MTBE. Theoretically, you could do what you propose, IF you can
> determine how precisely much ethanol you are taking out, make sure you got
> all the water back out, have the replacement on hand, determine the
> equivalent amount of replacement, and then mix the replacement uniformly
> through your fuel.
>
> Bob
>
> --------
> Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71966#71966
>
>
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: | radio problemradio problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rueb, Duane" <ruebd@skymail.csus.edu>
Yes, the degaussing is a great idea, and as you did, it is good to
remove the panel first. If you can't do that, then magnetically shield
the items most likely to be affected, such as the compass. The airframe
should have a neutral magnetic field, so as not to influence the compass
too much. This is a very good thing to do before finishing our
airplanes.
Duane Rueb
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Guy
Buchanan
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: radio problemradio problem
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 10:37 AM 11/3/2006, you wrote:
>Any suggestions for a fix ? I was thinking of a grounded piece of
copper
>screen above the stack.
I had this problem and it was caused primarily by the two panel
supports running aft from the windshield cross braces. They were heavily
magnetized. (Apparently arc welding causes the 4130 steel used in our
airframe to magnetize.) I used Sacramento Sky Ranch's rental degauss kit
to
degauss the whole area and have had no problems since. I removed my
panel
to do it since I wasn't sure whether the avionics would survive the
degauss
field.
I never tried shielding. I would ask the AeroElectric list on
Matronics. That's where I've seen the most discussion regarding
shielding.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: radio problemradio problem |
George, don't mount the compass above the radios unless it is a dry
compass. Mine leaked on the com and it cost $300 to get it fixed besides
the problem of coming back in with the handheld. I'm buying a vertical
card, dry compass. However, the compass worked well there, it was dead
on everytime I checked it with the rose.... which was about the only
time I ever looked at it.
Barry West
----- Original Message -----
From: George Wells@adelphia.net
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: radio problemradio problem
I have about the same problem but it is with my compass !!
If the compass is located anywhere except above the radio stack it
works fine. If I mount it in the center on the panel cover above the
radio stack the readings go goofey !! This is with the radios powered up
or off ?
Any suggestions for a fix ? I was thinking of a grounded piece of
copper screen above the stack.
Thanks
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: radio problemradio problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dave and Diane <ddsyverson@comcast.net>
Barry & all,
Vertical card compass...... exactly what I have been hoping & trying to get.
Spruce seems to have been out of stock for the last 100 years (ok - just one
year). Local aircraft wrecking yard seems to be out. Any idea where a person
can actually GET a vertical card compass?
Thanks,
Dave S
St Paul MN
M-7 nosedragger
Do Not Archive
On Friday 03 November 2006 3:58 pm, Barry West wrote:
> George, don't mount the compass above the radios unless it is a dry
> compass. Mine leaked on the com and it cost $300 to get it fixed besides
> the problem of coming back in with the handheld. I'm buying a vertical
> card, dry compass.
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: radio problemradio problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
http://www.cfisher.com/
link on left side of page about 4 down "compass swing ."
That a little program that makes a compass card I use.
Once you plug in the numbers just print on sticky paper.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave and Diane" <ddsyverson@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: radio problemradio problem
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dave and Diane <ddsyverson@comcast.net>
>
> Barry & all,
>
> Vertical card compass...... exactly what I have been hoping & trying to
> get.
> Spruce seems to have been out of stock for the last 100 years (ok - just
> one
> year). Local aircraft wrecking yard seems to be out. Any idea where a
> person
> can actually GET a vertical card compass?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave S
> St Paul MN
> M-7 nosedragger
>
> Do Not Archive
>
> On Friday 03 November 2006 3:58 pm, Barry West wrote:
>> George, don't mount the compass above the radios unless it is a dry
>> compass. Mine leaked on the com and it cost $300 to get it fixed besides
>> the problem of coming back in with the handheld. I'm buying a vertical
>> card, dry compass.
>
>
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Kitplanes Magazine question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
On the cover of the latest issue of Kitplanes magazine is a picture of
what looks like a Kitfox airplane. If you look real closely at the
picture on the left side of the cover, about halfway up as I recall (I
loaned my mag out), the Kitfox logo can be seen on the fin of the
red/white plane, along with the word "turbo." I'm wondering what model
this is, and why doesn't the plane show up in any of the articles
inside...as far as I could tell, that is. Usually when a magazine shows
something on its cover, there is a followup inside. Maybe they were
just using the picture as "filler."
Lynn
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | radio problemradio problem |
Na....Put the compass somewhere where it will work.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of George
Wells@adelphia.net
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: radio problemradio problem
I have about the same problem but it is with my compass !!
If the compass is located anywhere except above the radio stack it works
fine. If I mount it in the center on the panel cover above the radio stack
the readings go goofey !! This is with the radios powered up or off ?
Any suggestions for a fix ? I was thinking of a grounded piece of copper
screen above the stack.
Thanks
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | radio problemradio problem |
Probably something ferrous under the panel cover or in the stack itself.
I.e. the cases or mounts for the avionics themselves. I don't think
copper, even grounded screens magnetic waves. It is a good thing to notice
though.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of George
Wells@adelphia.net
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: radio problemradio problem
I have about the same problem but it is with my compass !!
If the compass is located anywhere except above the radio stack it works
fine. If I mount it in the center on the panel cover above the radio stack
the readings go goofey !! This is with the radios powered up or off ?
Any suggestions for a fix ? I was thinking of a grounded piece of copper
screen above the stack.
Thanks
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | radio problemradio problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Funny thing about compasses.... They are the first instrument your plane
should have ...... And the last one you will ever look at.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dave
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 7:12 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: radio problemradio problem
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
>
> http://www.cfisher.com/
> link on left side of page about 4 down "compass swing ."
>
> That a little program that makes a compass card I use.
> Once you plug in the numbers just print on sticky paper.
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave and Diane" <ddsyverson@comcast.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 5:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: radio problemradio problem
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dave and Diane
> <ddsyverson@comcast.net>
> >
> > Barry & all,
> >
> > Vertical card compass...... exactly what I have been hoping
> & trying to
> > get.
> > Spruce seems to have been out of stock for the last 100
> years (ok - just
> > one
> > year). Local aircraft wrecking yard seems to be out. Any
> idea where a
> > person
> > can actually GET a vertical card compass?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Dave S
> > St Paul MN
> > M-7 nosedragger
> >
> > Do Not Archive
> >
> > On Friday 03 November 2006 3:58 pm, Barry West wrote:
> >> George, don't mount the compass above the radios unless it is a dry
> >> compass. Mine leaked on the com and it cost $300 to get it
> fixed besides
> >> the problem of coming back in with the handheld. I'm
> buying a vertical
> >> card, dry compass.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Still Learning |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
Guy,
If your engine rpms with the clutch drop below 2400 the clutch is
disengaged and you have the equivalent of an engine out. No need to
actually shut it down. You can practice engine out glides and landings
whenever you want and still have the saftey net of a running engine.
That's what I routinely do with Tootie Mae. The good point is you will
know exactly how the airplane will behave should the engine ever quit.
The bad part is the spinning prop will really cut into your glide. I
think the knowing part is the more important.
Jerry Liles
Guy Buchanan wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
>
> At 06:52 PM 11/1/2006, you wrote:
>
>> There is one question. Was your engine still turning with the
>> throttle pulled or was it dead with the prop probably
>> still turning?
>
>
> In my case I'm not sure it makes a difference, since I'm
> running a 582 with a clutch. The prop's going to turn either way. When
> I get more courage I think I'll try some true engine shut-downs over
> one of the private strips out here to see the difference and to see
> how the airplane behaves with a dead engine.
>
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
Here is a link to CubCrafters.
Read the information from the site, but I have included it in the post to emphasize
specific statements.
http://www.cubcrafters.com/sportcub/lsa.aspx
When the Light Sport Aircraft rule finally passed on September 1st 2004, it
had changed a bit from what we were expecting from previous reports. The gross
weight went up from 1,220 lbs to 1,320 lbs., but the rule specified an empty
weight with a reserve for fuel. The upshot of that provision, as specified
by a formula in the certification standard, was that a 100 hp 2 place airplane
weigh a maximum of 890 lbs.
The certification standard they are referring to our friend, The Final Rule.
Federal Register
Certification of Aircraft and Airman for the Operation of Light-Sport aircraft;
Final Rule. Dated July 27, 2004
You now have CubCrafters,
http://www.cubcrafters.com/sportcub/lsa.aspx
Vans Aircraft
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12int.htm ,
And Kitfox Aircraft
http://kitfoxaircraft.com/SS%20Specs.htm
What left? The since its original certification, issue??
Has my aircraft been modified since it received its airworthiness certificate
to meet the formula??
No. End of test.
Thats all the FAA is concerned about. You have just addressed a certification
issue, not a limit to design efficiency. Quite the contrary, the empty takeoff
weight increase included in the final rule is meant to increase R&R in the
development of more efficient airframesengines. The less lbs of (1).., the more
for (3) baggage, and (4) fuel. Icing on the cake.
The legality of, any rated pilot, using my Series 5, exercising sport pilot
privileges, CANNOT be contested successfully. (in the context of the issue at
hand. Dont try to rob a bank with it.) And why would it be? Its allowed in the
rules and regs.
Remember, the problem is not with the FAA itself, the rules or regulations.
They are fine, and to our advantage it seems, It is the way that well meaning,
but not 100% informed people and press, that we respect, trust, and sometimes,
comply with, present the right information, but the wrong explanation.
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=72196#72196
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: Kitplanes Magazine question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimcarriere" <jimcarriere@yahoo.com>
Lynn, that was one of the original Series 7s that Skystar built. It had a Rotax
914 engine and two-blade Hoffman CS prop (hydraulic governor). Apparently it
could really go when it got up high (up high as in around 18,000 feet or maybe
even higher).
There was also a blue VFR taildragger with a 912, built much lighter (IIRC it didn't
have a turtledeck skylight, wing strut fairings, or wheel pants) with a
fixed-pitch three-blade Warp Drive prop. Later on a green one (I don't know many
details about it) built later on in the months before they went bankrupt.
I think the significance of the green one was the long range fuel tanks (4x13
gallon tanks taking up the inner 4 bays in each wing... a LOT of gas!) and extended
cargo area.
The red one wasn't there when I visited the factory in April 2004, but the blue
one was there and I flew in it. I should have been more suspicious when Ed Downs
didn't have much explanation about the whereabouts of the red turbo, or the
whereabouts of my fully paid for firewall back kit that he had promised me
to be delivered that month (they "sold it to another customer" and somehow forgot
to mention that let alone ask if I minded). I was pretty naive then, thanks
again for the costly lesson Ed Downs.
Jim in NW FL
Series 7 in progress
--------
Jim in NW FL
Kitfox Series 7 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=72203#72203
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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! --
|