Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:17 AM - Re: radio problem (Michel Verheughe)
2. 12:31 AM - Re: "maximum takeoff weight" Page by page (Michael Gibbs)
3. 12:34 AM - Warp Drive (John Anderson)
4. 01:08 AM - Re: Warp Drive (JC Propellerdesign)
5. 03:55 AM - Re: Warp Drive (dave)
6. 04:19 AM - Re: Re: Kitplanes Magazine question (Lynn Matteson)
7. 04:50 AM - Re: Warp Drive (Dave G.)
8. 05:23 AM - Re: radio problem (Noel Loveys)
9. 06:43 AM - Re: Warp Drive (dave)
10. 06:52 AM - Re: "maximum takeoff weight" Page by page (84KF)
11. 07:32 AM - Re: Re: "maximum takeoff weight" Page by page (Flybradair@cs.com)
12. 07:35 AM - Re: Re: "maximum takeoff weight" Page by page (dave)
13. 07:57 AM - Re: radio problem (Michel Verheughe)
14. 09:17 AM - Re: "maximum takeoff weight" Page by page (84KF)
15. 09:47 AM - Re: Warp Drive (Dave G.)
16. 09:50 AM - Re: Re: "maximum takeoff weight" Page by page (Lynn Matteson)
17. 10:53 AM - Re: "maximum takeoff weight" Page by page (84KF)
18. 01:59 PM - Re: Warp Drive (John Anderson)
19. 02:25 PM - Re: radio problemradio problem (Fox5flyer)
20. 02:25 PM - Re: Re: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case. (Fox5flyer)
21. 04:11 PM - Re: maximum width dimention (Ron Liebmann)
22. 04:17 PM - Re: Warp Drive (John Anderson)
23. 04:20 PM - Re: Re: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case. (Lynn Matteson)
24. 04:34 PM - Re: Re: maximum width dimention (Torgeir Mortensen)
25. 04:38 PM - Re: Re: Ethanol (jareds)
26. 04:42 PM - Re: Re: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case. (Fox5flyer)
27. 04:44 PM - Funeral: Outlaw, AKA Paul Servaty (jareds)
28. 04:51 PM - Reshrinking fabric (ron schick)
29. 05:04 PM - Re: Re: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case. (Lynn Matteson)
30. 05:25 PM - Re: Re: maximum width dimention (Ron Liebmann)
31. 05:25 PM - Re: Reshrinking fabric (Tom Jones)
32. 07:15 PM - Re: Re: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case. (Randy Daughenbaugh)
33. 07:40 PM - Re: Warp Drive (Noel Loveys)
34. 08:30 PM - Re: Reshrinking fabric (James Shumaker)
35. 09:42 PM - Re: radio problem (kurt schrader)
36. 10:07 PM - Re: radio problemradio problem (kurt schrader)
37. 10:13 PM - Engine Heater (Fox5flyer)
38. 10:31 PM - Re: Warp Drive (John Anderson)
39. 10:31 PM - John Anderson / EAA Sport Aviation Completions (Jim Crowder)
40. 11:56 PM - Re: John Anderson / EAA Sport Aviation Completions (John Anderson)
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: radio problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Nov 4, 2006, at 1:46 AM, Noel Loveys wrote:
> Funny thing about compasses.... They are the first instrument your
> plane
> should have ...... And the last one you will ever look at.
That is true, Noel. ;-)
I also have problems to understand how a radio can disturb a compass,
just as I have a problem to understand how a GPS can disturb a VHF
radio. But I am old enough to know that 'impossible' is a word that
doesn't exist and I follow the tread with attention.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "maximum takeoff weight" Page by page |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Steve sez:
>So, on page 44793...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).
This is not the definition of "maximum takeoff weight." You have
taken this section completely out of context. The paragraphs
preceding it describe concerns that some commentors had that people
would try to operate much heavier airplanes as light sports by
playing the very game you are attempting. The FAA agreed that some
people would try to do that and added this poorly-worded text to
their narrative. This is not regulatory, it's a comment.
Maximum takeoff weight is a fixed value applied by the manufacturer
(the "amateur" in the case of amateur-built aircraft) and does not
change from one flight to another, regardless of the aircraft's
loading. Adding the 4 values listed above produces a "takeoff
weight" not a "maximum takeoff weight" and is meaningless with regard
to LSA limitations.
Mike G.
N728KF
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
Well, from the thread back a bit about checking pitch in board from the tip
I
decided to check mine.
72" 3 blade.
Blade one tip 17.5 deg, 580mm from centre 26.2deg
Blade two 17.7 26.2
Blade three 17.5 24.7
So I set blade 3 at 18.6 tip and 25.9 @ 580mm. After this, to the eye
viewing from the side when running one blade was out and in flight I'm sure
not as smooth in flight!
So my thinking is perhaps the WarpDrive folk know something we don't.
Anyway, tomorrow it
goes back to as was.
~j~
_________________________________________________________________
Read the latest Hollywood gossip @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/entertainment
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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 |
|
Set the blade by the 75% radii = 686mm from center.
It seems that one blade is off 1,5 deg, that is a LOT
Makes me wonder if they use different moulds or if they pop them out
before they have cured. it should not be more difference then a 1/8 deg
or max 1/4
Most all that have measured there Warp blade have unequal blades.
Jan Carlsson
----- Original Message -----
From: John Anderson
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 9:34 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Warp Drive
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson"
<janderson412@hotmail.com>
Well, from the thread back a bit about checking pitch in board from
the tip
I
decided to check mine.
72" 3 blade.
Blade one tip 17.5 deg, 580mm from centre 26.2deg
Blade two 17.7 26.2
Blade three 17.5 24.7
So I set blade 3 at 18.6 tip and 25.9 @ 580mm. After this, to the eye
viewing from the side when running one blade was out and in flight I'm
sure
not as smooth in flight!
So my thinking is perhaps the WarpDrive folk know something we don't.
Anyway, tomorrow it
goes back to as was.
~j~
_________________________________________________________________
Read the latest Hollywood gossip @
http://xtramsn.co.nz/entertainment
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
John,
Glad you found similar reading to what a few of us others have found. I
re-adjusted mine so that all were the same at the 75% radii
point and tips were out a bit. I never noticed it by eye but I did run it
up and it seemed ok. So I flew it a few hours like that and I never saw
much of a difference but if anything it might have has a tiny bit less
vibration and there was not much to begin with.
I have a GSC on now and if works about equal to the WARP in performance.
And now with colder air ( 25F this am ) takeoffs in 150 feet or less are
the normal solo.
It would be interesting to see what difference you find with your prop at
the new settings. Heck maybe you might find it better than ever ?
Or maybe not. I had to try mine to see for myself and personally I don't
think it makes allot of difference in my case at least. As far as you
thinking that visually is looks different, maybe so but hey IVO props flex
makes me wonder about them too when on take off they bend 3 to 6 inches
ahead. But they seem popular and a good safety record.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 3:34 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Warp Drive
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson"
> <janderson412@hotmail.com>
>
>
> Well, from the thread back a bit about checking pitch in board from the
> tip I
> decided to check mine.
> 72" 3 blade.
> Blade one tip 17.5 deg, 580mm from centre 26.2deg
> Blade two 17.7 26.2
> Blade three 17.5 24.7
> So I set blade 3 at 18.6 tip and 25.9 @ 580mm. After this, to the eye
> viewing from the side when running one blade was out and in flight I'm
> sure not as smooth in flight!
> So my thinking is perhaps the WarpDrive folk know something we don't.
> Anyway, tomorrow it
> goes back to as was.
> ~j~
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Read the latest Hollywood gossip @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/entertainment
>
>
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: Kitplanes Magazine question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Thanks for the info, Jim. While I am enjoying the use of my model IV, I
sometimes forget the people who got screwed by the former Skystar
company. Hope you folks are getting on with your projects as well as
can be hoped.
Apparently the magazine just had some old pictures laying around and
decided to use them, disregarding the fact that they might not fit in
the scope of the issue which is, I believe, new *available*
kits....something about "poetic license", I guess. : )
Lynn
do not archive
On Saturday, November 4, 2006, at 12:00 AM, jimcarriere wrote:
> --> 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
>
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
Since the warp prop is being discussed. I'm curious about the mounting
method which is not described in the documentation I have. I gather that the
spinner mounting plate goes directly on the mounting flange followed by the
prop hub. After that I don't know whther to use this blank flange I have or
just washers and bolts.
I can back up the flange with self locking nuts but have not been able to
locate 8mm cross drilled bolts. Length appears to be 70 to 80 mm although I
have seen 80 quoted. I have the torque spec in the documents. I see warp
actually sells mounting hardware for a very low price, is this a set of
drilled bolts?
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
It's not so much the radio as the steel case it's in. Other things that can
happen is one of those magnetic screwdriver bits get left inside the case,
right under your compass.
As for the GPS RFI... That one I've seen on an early GPS. The GPS receiver
is actually three beasts in one. It's a sensitive micro wave radio receiver
with all the problems associated with high/multiple IF frequencies. It's an
astoundingly accurate timer ( 1 step away from caesium ) and it's a mini
computer and we all know how RF noisy computers are! You put something as
potentially noisy as that close to the IF circuits of your com and you will
get noise especially on the earlier models of GPS.
If you really want to see noise try placing an FM marine radio any where
close to a depth sounder! Their amplitude of the "Ping" is so high it's
almost impossible to filter. Larger ships put the actual sounder/transducer
in a remote location and only have a display routed to the helm.
As you say nothing is impossible. I remember twenty years ago telling a
friend about hams sending colour pictures all around the world... He said
so. My reply was that it was done through a 1KHZ window. That put a
different wheel on the cart. I can still remember him saying that's
impossible.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Michel Verheughe
> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 4:47 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: radio problem
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> On Nov 4, 2006, at 1:46 AM, Noel Loveys wrote:
> > Funny thing about compasses.... They are the first instrument your
> > plane
> > should have ...... And the last one you will ever look at.
>
> That is true, Noel. ;-)
> I also have problems to understand how a radio can disturb a compass,
> just as I have a problem to understand how a GPS can disturb a VHF
> radio. But I am old enough to know that 'impossible' is a word that
> doesn't exist and I follow the tread with attention.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Dave.
The mounting plate goes on outside of hub.
I don;'t know if Warp recommends drilled bolts.
I use to use drilled bolts but I don't now. I use AN locknuts only.
I am sure some will argue about safely wire but I think it totally
unnecessary.
As far as Bolts -- Try Leavens in Toronto as they usually have a good
stock of most bolts.
And if you a RAA member you get a further discount.
I have drilled many times my own heads and if you have the right length bolt
now and are adamant that you want drilled head -- just drill them.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp Drive
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
>
> Since the warp prop is being discussed. I'm curious about the mounting
> method which is not described in the documentation I have. I gather that
> the spinner mounting plate goes directly on the mounting flange followed
> by the prop hub. After that I don't know whther to use this blank flange I
> have or just washers and bolts.
>
> I can back up the flange with self locking nuts but have not been able to
> locate 8mm cross drilled bolts. Length appears to be 70 to 80 mm although
> I have seen 80 quoted. I have the torque spec in the documents. I see warp
> actually sells mounting hardware for a very low price, is this a set of
> drilled bolts?
>
>
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: "maximum takeoff weight" Page by page |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
This is not the definition of "maximum takeoff weight." You have
taken this section completely out of context.
In what way? PLEASE explain.
Maximum takeoff weight is a fixed value applied by the manufacturer
(the "amateur" in the case of amateur-built aircraft) and does not
change from one flight to another, regardless of the aircraft's
loading.
VERY VERY WRONG, Show you reference to that profound declaration! You just now,
made up your own difinition based on personal opinion. Can't do that.
"The FAA agreed that some people would try to do that and added this poorly-worded
text to their narrative. "
Why is it poorly-worded? I'ts beautiful.
Federal Register
Certification of Aircraft and Airman for the Operation of Light-Sport aircraft;
Final Rule. Dated July 27, 2004
"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)
It is regulatory, and has now defined the conditions ONLY FOR LIGHT-SPORT weight
issues. This is not a BLANKET statement, applicableto ANY casualy tossed out
use or intended use of the term gross weight.
also
Please don't break a progressive thread by using my "subject title" to start a
reply in a new post. Reply to the original post using the "reply button at the
bottom of the original post. It will maintain the continuity of the discussion.
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=72253#72253
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: "maximum takeoff weight" Page by page |
Any aircraft with the original certification filed with the FAA with a gross
weight of 1320 or under can be flown LSA.
Any aircraft with the original certification filed with the FAA with a gross
weight of over 1320 cannot be changed to meet LSA.
If you are still building you can set the gross weight at 1320 when you
register the aircraft and fly LSA.
If you are done building and the aircraft is registered at 1550 then you
cannot fly LSA.
Sorry Steve, your beating a dead horse.
Brad
Wichita
5- 1550 gross
In a message dated 11/4/06 8:56:53 AM Central Standard Time,
stevebenesh@comcast.net writes:
>
> "The FAA realized it needed to and did, include the definition of =C3=A2
=82=AC=C5=93
> maximum takeoff weight=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D as it applies to the LSA defin
ition 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 t
he
> definition of light-sport aircraft by limiting the approved weight and pay
load
> of the airplane. The FAA considers this a valid concern and has provided s
ome
> 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)
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: "maximum takeoff weight" Page by page |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Kind of sick of this of this topic.
Bottom line----
If you not happy with LSA then go for it .
If not --well stay N numbered
All I see is LSA is a way to guys who lost aviation medical to fly with a
limit of 1320 lbs on wheels. But i stand to be corrected.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 9:51 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: "maximum takeoff weight" Page by page
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
This is not the definition of "maximum takeoff weight." You have
taken this section completely out of context.
In what way? PLEASE explain.
Maximum takeoff weight is a fixed value applied by the manufacturer
(the "amateur" in the case of amateur-built aircraft) and does not
change from one flight to another, regardless of the aircraft's
loading.
VERY VERY WRONG, Show you reference to that profound declaration! You just
now, made up your own difinition based on personal opinion. Can't do that.
"The FAA agreed that some people would try to do that and added this
poorly-worded text to their narrative. "
Why is it poorly-worded? I'ts beautiful.
Federal Register
Certification of Aircraft and Airman for the Operation of Light-Sport
aircraft; Final Rule. Dated July 27, 2004
"The FAA realized it needed to and did, include the definition of ?omaximum
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)
It is regulatory, and has now defined the conditions ONLY FOR LIGHT-SPORT
weight issues. This is not a BLANKET statement, applicableto ANY casualy
tossed out use or intended use of the term gross weight.
also
Please don't break a progressive thread by using my "subject title" to start
a reply in a new post. Reply to the original post using the "reply button
at the bottom of the original post. It will maintain the continuity of the
discussion.
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=72253#72253
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: radio problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Nov 4, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
> It's not so much the radio as the steel case it's in.
Yes, that is more understandable, Noel.
> If you really want to see noise try placing an FM marine radio any
> where
> close to a depth sounder!
Er ... my marine VHF radio and depth sounder are no more than a foot
apart and I haven't noticed anything. But then, I am talking about the
receiver, not the transducer that is at the lowest point of the hull.
> I remember twenty years ago telling a friend about hams sending colour
> pictures all around the world...
Slow-scan TV? Few people know all the weird things hams are doing, like
moon bouncing and meteor scatters ... :-)
My only RFI, when sailing, was when I used the ham radio on the 20
meters band, with 100 Watts output, which resulted in my GPS and
Autohelm autopilot jamming. I use the isolated backstay as a long wire
antenna.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: "maximum takeoff weight" Page by page |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
Adding the 4 values listed above produces a "takeoff weight"
This is correct, and you dont realize it but you just determined the weight of
the aircraft, at the time of takeoff. and if it does not exceed 1320lbs (land)
you have not exceeded the limit (for the aircraft) to be light-sport eligible.
(if it meets the rest of the parameters).
Any aircraft with the original certification filed with the FAA with a gross weight
of 1320 or under can be flown LSA.
Correct, if the rest of the parameters are meet also.
Any aircraft with the original certification filed with the FAA with a gross weight
of over 1320 cannot be changed to meet LSA. You may not modify the aircraft
in order to meet the definition, correct, but it is not Gross weight, or
design weight that is the limiting factor.
It is true, you will not find any aircraft with a TCDS that is light-sport eligible
to have a maximum weight (as written on a TCDS.) greater then 1320 lbs
(land). That is an operation limitation and written in stone when certificated.
But in some TCDS aircraft, if you do fill both seats with two big guysgals,
fill the tanks and add some baggage, maximum weight will easily bee exceeded,
so you need to control loading in order to comply with maximum takeoff weight.
to remain legal.
The since original certification is included to prohibit certificated (TCDS)
aircraft from being modified to meet the definition in 1.1 eg. Change to small
fuel tanks to reduce the weight of full fuel
If you not happy with LSA then go for it .
If not --well stay N numbered
??????????
What does this mean??? What does N numbers have to do with anything?? SLSA, ELSA,
and amatuer-built that meet the definition, are all referred to by tha FAA
as light-sport aircraft, and the ALL require N numbers.
Well, we can agree to disagree, but I have provided all regulatory information,
not opinions or personal interpretation of the subject matter. If one insists
on denying the facts, to justify a misconception of the regs, like one might
have read on , say, JimBobs Official Aeroplane and Tractor Website, then it
is that person who has to deviate from the FAAs definitions and guidelines.
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=72270#72270
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
----- Original Message -----
From: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp Drive
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
>
> Dave.
>
> The mounting plate goes on outside of hub.
>
> I don;'t know if Warp recommends drilled bolts.
> I use to use drilled bolts but I don't now. I use AN locknuts only.
>
> I am sure some will argue about safely wire but I think it totally
> unnecessary.
>
> As far as Bolts -- Try Leavens in Toronto as they usually have a good
> stock of most bolts.
> And if you a RAA member you get a further discount.
>
> I have drilled many times my own heads and if you have the right length
> bolt now and are adamant that you want drilled head -- just drill them.
>
>
> Dave
>
I surely don't have the right ones. I'm just trying to figure out what to
use. I have used some 8x70 mm bolts from Home Depot just to have a look at
the prop and how the blades measure up with the protractor. Wasting time
instead of getting on with the business of figuring out how to glue up the
new rear spars into the existing wing structure. Rebuilding is way harder
than new building all 'round. Oh well.
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: "maximum takeoff weight" Page by page |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Or guys like me, Dave, who have never had a pilots license before, but
for one reason or another don't want to try for the medical, and are
willing to restrict themselves to the Sport Pilot rules, and have an
LSA plane to fly.
Lynn
On Saturday, November 4, 2006, at 10:35 AM, dave wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
>
> All I see is LSA is a way to guys who lost aviation medical to fly
> with a limit of 1320 lbs on wheels. But i stand to be corrected.
>
> Dave
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: "maximum takeoff weight" Page by page |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
Mike, Sir,
In regards to:
(page 44793 of :Federal Register Certification of Aircraft and Airman for the Operation
of Light-Sport aircraft; Final Rule. Dated July 27, 2004) 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)
If you are of the opinion that this statement was just talk, then apply this logic.
If you do not consider this definition as pertinent then why is there all the confusion
with the way the rule is being interpreted and why are we, and the
aviation light-sport sport pilot community discussing the issue in the first
place???
If, and when, you do consider it pertinent, then it eliminates ANY and ALL confusion
in EVERY case and has absolutely no negative effect to any rule or reg,
and does not contradicts any intention andor stated purpose of the new regulations.
It does not change one single thing not one, because the regulations are
centered around this paragraph.
One is not defying the FAA, or challenging it, just the opposite, You are using
the information they provided, as intended, to eliminate confusion, and comply
with the Reg. The fact that it is not on the only page one wants to read
does not make it disappear.
This is the cipher, or key , to proper understanding. If I ask 5 people to tell
me the circumference of a circle 6.5 inches in diameter only using a tape measure,
I MIGHT get 5 different readings, some more accurate than others, but
if you apply Pi (the key) you get the same answer every time. No almosts
Thats why its pertinent, and applicable Thats WHY it is there.
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=72282#72282
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
Yes Dave, I'll reset at the 75 percentile and see how it goes, but sure it
was rougher after this last adjustment. Not sure if the visual tip track is
a good indicator or not, we helicopter types are always looking at blade tip
pathtip path plane is very important.
Wonder if the tip track is not very important for smooth operation on warp
props and being composite, no sayng what is happening at 2500 RPM?
Considering the lever arm at the tip, a degree variation might have a
greater effect than pitch variation at a lower percentile.
From: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp Drive
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
John,
Glad you found similar reading to what a few of us others have found. I
re-adjusted mine so that all were the same at the 75% radii
point and tips were out a bit. I never noticed it by eye but I did run it
up and it seemed ok. So I flew it a few hours like that and I never saw
much of a difference but if anything it might have has a tiny bit less
vibration and there was not much to begin with.
I have a GSC on now and if works about equal to the WARP in performance. And
now with colder air ( 25F this am ) takeoffs in 150 feet or less are the
normal solo.
It would be interesting to see what difference you find with your prop at
the new settings. Heck maybe you might find it better than ever ?
Or maybe not. I had to try mine to see for myself and personally I don't
think it makes allot of difference in my case at least. As far as you
thinking that visually is looks different, maybe so but hey IVO props flex
makes me wonder about them too when on take off they bend 3 to 6 inches
ahead. But they seem popular and a good safety record.
Dave
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Anderson"
<janderson412@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 3:34 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Warp Drive
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson"
><janderson412@hotmail.com>
>
>
>Well, from the thread back a bit about checking pitch in board from the tip
>I
>decided to check mine.
>72" 3 blade.
>Blade one tip 17.5 deg, 580mm from centre 26.2deg
>Blade two 17.7 26.2
>Blade three 17.5 24.7
>So I set blade 3 at 18.6 tip and 25.9 @ 580mm. After this, to the eye
>viewing from the side when running one blade was out and in flight I'm sure
>not as smooth in flight!
>So my thinking is perhaps the WarpDrive folk know something we don't.
>Anyway, tomorrow it
>goes back to as was.
>~j~
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Read the latest Hollywood gossip @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/entertainment
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Read the latest Hollywood gossip @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/entertainment
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
Thanks Dave. Good contribution.
Deke Morisse
List Janitor
do not archive
>
> 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 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: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
Steve, I've been watching your posts carefully and even though they seem to
have some merit, I haven't really made up my mind what the rule really means
nor the time to study it. Maybe it's mostly because once we learn something
one way we have a hard time changing our minds to learn it another way. Too
much work, I guess. Anyway, have you taken this topic up with the EAA? I'm
sure they have someone who is their resident expert who has heard this stuff
before and I'm sure would be happy to respond and settle this discussion.
I'd like to know because someday I may personally need to be clear with the
true facts about it all. If you can obtain something from them, please pass
it to the list so we can rest our confused minds.
As I see it, the only real meaningful advantage of flying as sport pilot is
being able to fly without a medical, so long as you've never flunked one.
Regards,
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 11:41 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: 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
>
> ?oWhen 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
>
> Van?Ts Aircraft
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12int.htm ,
>
> And Kitfox Aircraft
> http://kitfoxaircraft.com/SS%20Specs.htm
>
> What left? The ?osince its original certification?o, issue??
> Has my aircraft been modified since it received it?Ts airworthiness
certificate to meet the formula??
> No. End of test.
> That?Ts all the FAA is concerned about. You have just addressed a
certification issue, not a limit to design efficiency. Quite the contrary,
the ?oempty 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. Don?~t try to rob a bank with it.) And why would it be?
It?Ts 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, ?ocomply? 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 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: maximum width dimention |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron Liebmann" <rliebmann@comcast.net>
Hi All,
A friend has volunteered to take my Model 2 from the airport to my shop 20
miles away inside of an inclosed trailer. But first I need to know the width
at the wings with them folded and locked back.
Does anyone know that dimention off hand. Otherwise I will go to the airport
early and them call him before he starts out. I'm sure that it is less than
8 feet but I need the exact figure.
Thanks much, Ron N55KF
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
No Dave, the plate goes on after the prop hub. I machined up a re-enforcing
ring and drilled hub pattern rather than just use washers. ~j~
From: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp Drive
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
Since the warp prop is being discussed. I'm curious about the mounting
method which is not described in the documentation I have. I gather that the
spinner mounting plate goes directly on the mounting flange followed by the
prop hub. After that I don't know whther to use this blank flange I have or
just washers and bolts.
I can back up the flange with self locking nuts but have not been able to
locate 8mm cross drilled bolts. Length appears to be 70 to 80 mm although I
have seen 80 quoted. I have the torque spec in the documents. I see warp
actually sells mounting hardware for a very low price, is this a set of
drilled bolts?
_________________________________________________________________
Become a fitness fanatic @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/health
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
And being able to get there (flying) quicker, if you're an elderly gent
like myself, and cheaper, in that less training hours are needed.
Lynn
On Saturday, November 4, 2006, at 04:34 PM, Fox5flyer wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
> As I see it, the only real meaningful advantage of flying as sport
> pilot is
> being able to fly without a medical, so long as you've never flunked
> one.
> Regards,
> Deke
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: maximum width dimention |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor@online.no>
Ron,
according to my owners manual for Kitfox II, the with (wings folded) is 7
ft. 10 in. or 2.39 meters.
Torgeir.
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:10:02 +0100, Ron Liebmann <rliebmann@comcast.net>
wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron Liebmann" <rliebmann@comcast.net>
>
> Hi All,
>
> A friend has volunteered to take my Model 2 from the airport to my shop
> 20 miles away inside of an inclosed trailer. But first I need to know
> the width at the wings with them folded and locked back.
>
> Does anyone know that dimention off hand. Otherwise I will go to the
> airport early and them call him before he starts out. I'm sure that it
> is less than 8 feet but I need the exact figure.
>
> Thanks much, Ron N55KF
>
>
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: jareds <jareds@verizon.net>
Don,
I thought the MBTE acted as a lubricant after lead was removed from
gasoline.
Now that i moved from DC to South Dakota there is an ethynol plant on
every corner. The TV commercial where the dude rolls up to a corn field
to fill up is almost a reality here. I really have to go out of my way
to find fuel because our bulk deliverer only can delivery ethy based
fuel. So this is a pretty interesting thread. Hope we get some more
experts to weigh in!
Thanks,
Jared
Don Smythe wrote:
> --> 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>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> 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 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
Good points Lynn, except for the elderly part. You're just a puppy.
Deke
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case.
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> And being able to get there (flying) quicker, if you're an elderly gent
> like myself, and cheaper, in that less training hours are needed.
>
> Lynn
> On Saturday, November 4, 2006, at 04:34 PM, Fox5flyer wrote:
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
> > As I see it, the only real meaningful advantage of flying as sport
> > pilot is
> > being able to fly without a medical, so long as you've never flunked
> > one.
> > Regards,
> > Deke
>
>
>
>
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: | Funeral: Outlaw, AKA Paul Servaty |
It is with great sorrow to report that Outlaw, AKA Paul Servaty,
died earlier this week. He will be deeply missed by anyone who knew him.
Paul fit his nickname (Outlaw) and for those who know the DC area may
have heard of his legendary landing on Shark Tooth Island. He had a
beautiful craft and continually won
awards at Sun n Fun among others.
Paul and i flew many times under the radar at the private Clements MD
strip on the Washington DC ADIZ.
He made sure the beach goer's and boaters knew he was in the air. Low
and SLow was hit mantra.
Paul loved his harley and we met up numerous times with the harley
choppers to take in some local music. He lived life to the fullest.
The funeral will be at:Brinsfield Funeral Home, "Leonardtown, MD". The
public viewing will take place Monday November 6th, from 9-10am.
Services will begin at 10am with Father Bob Costi.
Friends are welcome at 1:00 pm to the home of Mae Servaty: 24220 Victory
Lane, Clements, MD. 20624. Feel free to bring refreshments.
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: | Reshrinking fabric |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "ron schick" <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
I need to do some fabric work , and other things, and was wondering if I can
use a heat gun to reshrink the painted fabric. I want to unglue then reglue
as much as possible. Ya not my best landing. Ron NB Ore
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and morethen map the best
route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
A 70-yr-old puppy....let's see...70 divided by 9=7-7/9....yeah, an 8
year old puppy...cool : )
Lynn
Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
do not archive
On Saturday, November 4, 2006, at 07:41 PM, Fox5flyer wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
>
> Good points Lynn, except for the elderly part. You're just a puppy.
> Deke
> do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 7:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my
> case.
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>>
>> And being able to get there (flying) quicker, if you're an elderly
>> gent
>> like myself, and cheaper, in that less training hours are needed.
>>
>> Lynn
>> On Saturday, November 4, 2006, at 04:34 PM, Fox5flyer wrote:
>>
>>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
>>> As I see it, the only real meaningful advantage of flying as sport
>>> pilot is
>>> being able to fly without a medical, so long as you've never flunked
>>> one.
>>> Regards,
>>> Deke
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: maximum width dimention |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron Liebmann" <rliebmann@comcast.net>
Thank you very much, Torgeir. Now I get to sleep in longer. ;>)
Ron
> Ron,
>
> according to my owners manual for Kitfox II, the with (wings folded) is 7
> ft. 10 in. or 2.39 meters.
>
>
> Torgeir.
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: Reshrinking fabric |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tom Jones" <nahsikhs@elltel.net>
Ron, in a word from the Poly Fiber manual, no. The fabric will shrink if the final
tightning when it was installed was less than 350 degrees. But, Above 350degrees
the fabric loosens and will not reshrink. At 415 degrees the fabric
disintegrates. The problem is there is no way to control the heat with a heat
gun.
The good news is that fabric is very easy to repair by the book.
Tom Jones,
Ellensburg, WA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=72324#72324
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Lynn (sir puppy!),
I think you have hit upon the true value of the sport pilot class. If it
gets people flying faster and cheaper, hopefully it will get many more
people flying and give pilots a little clout in the political arena. Then
it will be better for all of us!
Randy - Series 5/7 - 1320 lb certificated gross weight.
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: 1550 lbs? Let's ask dad. and I rest my case.
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
And being able to get there (flying) quicker, if you're an elderly gent
like myself, and cheaper, in that less training hours are needed.
Lynn
On Saturday, November 4, 2006, at 04:34 PM, Fox5flyer wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
> As I see it, the only real meaningful advantage of flying as sport
> pilot is
> being able to fly without a medical, so long as you've never flunked
> one.
> Regards,
> Deke
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Lock nuts work ...especially if they are checked n the schedule recommended
by the prop manufacturer. But.... You can't beat the look of a nice well
done lock wire job. According to Ivo people don't like to cut lock wire to
check and retorque the prop bolts so they require that you not use lock wire
on their prop bolts.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dave
> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 11:13 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp Drive
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
>
> Dave.
>
> The mounting plate goes on outside of hub.
>
> I don;'t know if Warp recommends drilled bolts.
> I use to use drilled bolts but I don't now. I use AN locknuts only.
>
> I am sure some will argue about safely wire but I think it totally
> unnecessary.
>
> As far as Bolts -- Try Leavens in Toronto as they usually
> have a good
> stock of most bolts.
> And if you a RAA member you get a further discount.
>
> I have drilled many times my own heads and if you have the
> right length bolt
> now and are adamant that you want drilled head -- just drill them.
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 7:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp Drive
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
> >
> > Since the warp prop is being discussed. I'm curious about
> the mounting
> > method which is not described in the documentation I have.
> I gather that
> > the spinner mounting plate goes directly on the mounting
> flange followed
> > by the prop hub. After that I don't know whther to use this
> blank flange I
> > have or just washers and bolts.
> >
> > I can back up the flange with self locking nuts but have
> not been able to
> > locate 8mm cross drilled bolts. Length appears to be 70 to
> 80 mm although
> > I have seen 80 quoted. I have the torque spec in the
> documents. I see warp
> > actually sells mounting hardware for a very low price, is
> this a set of
> > drilled bolts?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Reshrinking fabric |
Ron=0A=0AYou can Not unglue and reglue for various reasons. Heat guns are
allowed either.=0A=0AJim Shumaker=0A=0ADo not archive=0A=0A=0A----- Origina
l Message ----=0AFrom: ron schick <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>=0ATo: kitfox-
list@matronics.com=0ASent: Saturday, November 4, 2006 4:50:49 PM=0ASubject:
Kitfox-List: Reshrinking fabric=0A=0A=0A--> Kitfox-List message posted by:
"ron schick" <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>=0A=0AI need to do some fabric wor
k , and other things, and was wondering if I can =0Ause a heat gun to reshr
ink the painted fabric. I want to unglue then reglue =0Aas much as possibl
e. Ya not my best landing. Ron NB Ore=0A=0A_____________________________
____________________________________=0AFind a local pizza place, music stor
e, museum and more=85then map the best =0Aroute! http://local.live.com?FOR
=======
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: radio problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
--- Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
> Slow-scan TV? Few people know all the weird things
> hams are doing, like
> moon bouncing and meteor scatters ... :-)
If I remember correctly, NASA borrowed slow scan from
the Ham guys, who invented it. NASA stayed with it
until the digital age for all their space pics. But
slow scan, like KitFox's and our "improvements", are
home brew. Many new ideas also come from model
builders.
We are the leaders, not the followers. :-)
Kurt S.
Do not archive
Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the New Yahoo.com
(http://www.yahoo.com/preview)
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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 |
|
| Subject: | radio problemradio problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
--- Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> 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
I agree. Grounded copper only works on moving
magnetic fields, like that produced by alternating
current, not stationary magnets, like in the ferrous
metals.
Kurt S.
Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates
(http://voice.yahoo.com)
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
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 |
|
I'm looking for ideas for an engine heater. Following are the things it
needs to satisfy for my situation.
- First, no electric is available so it must be self sustaining, but
battery power is fine.
- Must be able to heat engine up to at least 75 degrees in a
reasonable time.
- Must be safe with no threat of the open flame torching anything or
shrinking fabric. This doesn't mean it can't have an open flame. It
just needs to be safe.
- Plans built is fine so long as components are readily available.
- Factory built is fine too if someone has a setup to sell.
- Must be portable.
If anybody has any meaningful suggestions they can contribute I'd much
appreciate it.
If offering to sell me something, please take that off list. Photos are
welcome.
Thanks a bunch,
Deke
S5 in a cold hangar
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
AN metal stiff nuts are the go and if it's a bolt and nut situ, then lock
wire has no place. It would be lock nuts or castle. ~j~
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Warp Drive
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Lock nuts work ...especially if they are checked n the schedule recommended
by the prop manufacturer. But.... You can't beat the look of a nice well
done lock wire job. According to Ivo people don't like to cut lock wire to
check and retorque the prop bolts so they require that you not use lock wire
on their prop bolts.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dave
> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 11:13 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp Drive
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
>
> Dave.
>
> The mounting plate goes on outside of hub.
>
> I don;'t know if Warp recommends drilled bolts.
> I use to use drilled bolts but I don't now. I use AN locknuts only.
>
> I am sure some will argue about safely wire but I think it totally
> unnecessary.
>
> As far as Bolts -- Try Leavens in Toronto as they usually
> have a good
> stock of most bolts.
> And if you a RAA member you get a further discount.
>
> I have drilled many times my own heads and if you have the
> right length bolt
> now and are adamant that you want drilled head -- just drill them.
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 7:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp Drive
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
> >
> > Since the warp prop is being discussed. I'm curious about
> the mounting
> > method which is not described in the documentation I have.
> I gather that
> > the spinner mounting plate goes directly on the mounting
> flange followed
> > by the prop hub. After that I don't know whther to use this
> blank flange I
> > have or just washers and bolts.
> >
> > I can back up the flange with self locking nuts but have
> not been able to
> > locate 8mm cross drilled bolts. Length appears to be 70 to
> 80 mm although
> > I have seen 80 quoted. I have the torque spec in the
> documents. I see warp
> > actually sells mounting hardware for a very low price, is
> this a set of
> > drilled bolts?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
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: | John Anderson / EAA Sport Aviation Completions |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
John,
If I'm not mistaken your Kitfox just made the EAA Sport Aviation
Completions in the November edition I just
received. Congratulations, that is a nice looking airplane.
Jim Crowder
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 |
|
| Subject: | John Anderson / EAA Sport Aviation Completions |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
Is it me Jim? ZK-RJA?? Hadn't heard. Takes us a while to get it out here in
NZ. Rgds, John
From: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: John Anderson / EAA Sport Aviation Completions
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
John,
If I'm not mistaken your Kitfox just made the EAA Sport Aviation Completions
in the November edition I just received. Congratulations, that is a nice
looking airplane.
Jim Crowder
_________________________________________________________________
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! --
|