Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:39 AM - WLAS [Please Read] (Matt Dralle)
1. 05:26 AM - Re: Fire extinguisher Mount Location (Tom Jones)
2. 05:31 AM - Re: Model III-A?? (Dee Young)
3. 05:31 AM - Re: Re: Rotax 912 or 912S decision (Brent E Bidus)
4. 05:45 AM - Re: Model III-A?? (Dee Young)
5. 05:56 AM - Re: Bluetooth GPS Receiver (Bob)
6. 06:11 AM - Re: Reshrunk fabric (Noel Loveys)
7. 06:17 AM - Re: Model III-A?? (Noel Loveys)
8. 06:29 AM - Re: Re: Fire extinguisher Mount Location (Noel Loveys)
9. 06:33 AM - Re: Model III-A?? (Noel Loveys)
10. 06:46 AM - Re: Re: Bluetooth GPS Receiver (Noel Loveys)
11. 06:50 AM - Re: Model III-A?? (Malcolmbru@aol.com)
12. 06:57 AM - Re: Reshrunk fabric (Bradley M Webb)
13. 07:00 AM - Re: Model III-A?? (Bradley M Webb)
14. 07:08 AM - Re: Model III-A?? (Malcolmbru@aol.com)
15. 07:28 AM - Re: Reshrunk fabric (Lowell Fitt)
16. 07:40 AM - Re: Model III-A?? (Noel Loveys)
17. 08:17 AM - Re: Model III-A?? (Noel Loveys)
18. 08:29 AM - Re: Reshrunk fabric (jimcarriere)
19. 08:31 AM - Re: Reshrunk fabric (Noel Loveys)
20. 08:36 AM - Re: FAA aircraft chart for download (Michael Gibbs)
21. 09:20 AM - Re: Re: Bluetooth GPS Receiver (Michel Verheughe)
22. 09:27 AM - Re: FAA aircraft chart for download (Bob)
23. 10:13 AM - Re: FAA aircraft chart for download (84KF)
24. 11:08 AM - Model II MTOW (Dee Young)
25. 11:20 AM - Re: Model III-A?? (Dee Young)
26. 11:30 AM - Re: Model III-A?? (Lowell Fitt)
27. 11:30 AM - Re: Model III-A?? (Dee Young)
28. 12:59 PM - Re: Model III-A?? (GENTRYLL@AOL.COM)
29. 01:20 PM - Re: Model III-A?? (Noel Loveys)
30. 01:24 PM - Re: Model III-A?? (Noel Loveys)
31. 02:09 PM - Vixen: Warp Drive Cracked (Continental Engine) (FlyboyTR)
32. 03:42 PM - Jim Shumaker VGs (Larry Martin)
33. 03:43 PM - Re: Vixen: Warp Drive Cracked (Continental Engine) (kurt schrader)
34. 03:57 PM - Re: Model III-A?? (Lynn Matteson)
35. 04:35 PM - Model II (Dee Young)
36. 05:09 PM - Re Gross weight and Model (Rex Shaw)
37. 05:20 PM - Re: Vixen: Warp Drive Cracked (Continental Engine) (Fox5flyer)
38. 06:00 PM - Gross weight and model (Fox5flyer)
39. 06:13 PM - Re: Re Gross weight and Model (jdmcbean)
40. 06:22 PM - transponder (kirk hull)
41. 06:52 PM - Re: Vixen: Warp Drive Cracked (Continental Engine) (Tom Jones)
42. 06:57 PM - Re: Jim Shumaker VGs (James Shumaker)
43. 06:57 PM - Re: Jim Shumaker VGs (James Shumaker)
44. 07:09 PM - Re: Vixen: Warp Drive Cracked (Continental Engine) (Tom Jones)
45. 07:59 PM - Re: Jim Shumaker VGs (Larry Martin)
46. 08:45 PM - Re: Gross weight and model (john perry)
47. 09:45 PM - Re: Reshrunk fabric (ron schick)
Message 0
| 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: | WLAS [Please Read] |
Dear Listers,
I sat down at the 'ol computer tonight to have a look at a few of the nice comments
List Members have been including along with their Contributions this year.
I was amazed at how many I found and even more amazed at some of the very nice
things Listers have been saying about the Lists and how valuable the they
are to them.
I've included quite a few of these nice comments below. Please read over some
of this great Lister feedback. No doubt you will find that you agree with at
least one or two of those comments - maybe all of them! If you find that do,
won't you please make a Contribution to support these Lists today!! Its fast
and easy with the Matronics List Contribution Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Don't forget that I've now fully implemented the new *List Fund Raiser Squelch*
feature that will automatically intercept any future iterations of my "Please
Contribute" messages -- that is, *once you've made YOUR Contribution*! How cool
is that? (Make sure the email address you enter along with your Contribution
matches exactly your subscribed List email address. An exact match is how
it works.)
Thank you for your generous Contributions this year and for all the wonderful comments!!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
================= What Listers Are Saying (WLAS) ================
Absolutely the best deal on the Internet!!
-Owen B
I love The Matronics...
-Robeto B
My wife has her soaps & I've got my lists!
-Hal B
These lists are, indeed, the lifeline of our hobby.
-Bob R
The best source of information for my a/c.
-Tony C
The Zenith list is the first thing I read in the morning.
-Herbert H
You do more good than you can imagine. I wish I'd known
about you while I was building my Kitfox, but you are
still an after-the-fact resource.
-Ben B
..an excellent site.
-Ashley M
The "List" has been the ultimate help for my Zenith
CH 701 project!!
-Brian U
I appreciate the list being here for me.
-Geoff H
..a great service.
-William C
The List continues to be an interesting and useful facility.
-David M
Your list is a constant goad to keep me working on my project.
-Thomas S
..a great service.
-Robert W
The Pietenpol list is a great resource.
-Benjamin W
The Yak-list is Awesome!
-James S
..great service.
-Robert S
The features you have implemented recently have you poised
to knock out yahoo groups...
-Danny D
I like how your forum looks/works and the list service...
-Ken E
..great service.
-David P
Very useful web site.
-Wayne E
..a very valuable service.
-Chris D
Great sites...
-Randall R
I used to look at [that other] site also but it's gotten so
cluttered with advertising that I've stopped looking at it.
-Wayne E
Without your services, the build would be a grope in the dark...
-Fergus K
The information and help I've received greatly outweighs the
donation...
-Lee P
..great service!
-Christopher D
I really don't think I could be building my plane without the
wisdom I find on this list.
-William G
It really makes building a pleasure.
-James P
..great service.
-Doug W
I'm getting near the end of my build (Europa tri XS) don't
think I could have done it with out the help of the forum.
-Stanislaus S
Marvelous service. Couldn't have done it without you.
-Jim G
Love the list, this is a wonderful way to help others...
-Michael S
..good service.
-Derek L
The list is responsible for helping me complete this project
and educating me in the process.
-Jeff D
Definitely worth the donation.
-Ron L
..great service to the aviation community.
-Tony P
I have been flying my plane for 5 years (RV-6) but I still
get valuable information from this service.
-Don N
A very helpful site.
-Roland S
It's a great community to be part of.
-David L
Great sites.
-John C
A great place to find and share not only information but to
meet people across the country and make lasting relationships.
-Uncle Craig
Great facility.
-Peter H
Its a great source of information!
-Michael W
Great improvements to the List...
-Edward A
Great service!!!
-Rich D
..great resource!
-William C
..excellent lists!
-Michael S
Couldn't have built my RV4 without the list.
-Warren M
..a great service...
-James N
I would not have missed [the list] for anything during the
building of my Europa.
-Svein J
..another great year.
-Robert D
..this [is an] essential builder's resource.
-David A
..excellent service.
-Gregory B
I've learned a huge amount of "stuff" over the past year
and look forward to it every day!
-Smith M
..a great communication tool...
-Jon M
Finished building 5 years ago, but still are lurking on
your great list!
-Lothar K
..a valuable service. At 11:00 pm Matronics is the goto
place for my RV questions.
-Mike D
================= What Listers Are Saying (WLAS) ================
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: Fire extinguisher Mount Location |
Thanks Noel, I know what you mean by "not much room". I am 6'3" and long legged.
I have been taking lessons in a Stinson and now when I sit in my kitfox it
seems kind of small.
Tom Jones
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=74125#74125
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: Model III-A?? |
I have a model II the serial number is 345. There were several engine
options offered for the model II. The Rotax 582, Rotax 912 and the KFM
112. There were also options available at the time which included two
wing tanks and aluminum header tank to be located behind the seat. If
you look in the archives you may find the documentation which serial
numbers went with which model numbers. Hope this will help some.
Dee Young
Model II N345DY
KFM 112
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel Loveys<mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com<mailto:kitfox-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 8:45 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
<noelloveys@yahoo.ca<mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca>>
To all the Kitfox flyers...
My kitfox is registered as a model III-A. The serial # is 736. I was
going
through some of the paper work the other day and noticed the original
order
was for a model II.
I am wondering where I can go to find out what has to be done to the
plane
to increase the MTOW from 950 to 1050 safely. Transport Canada has
agreed
to bump it up if I really want it. I would like to do that only if it
is
safe.
The question is this: Is my plane actually a model 2 1/2??? It has
the
separate engine mount and the wing tanks with the small header tank
under
the panel. The wings are concave on the bottoms. At the time the
plane was
originally sold as a kit the Rotax 912 engine was an option.
I've checked with John McBean and he is as much in the dark as I am on
this
one..... I guess this one is extra unique.... I don't suppose Dan
Denney is
still around??
Noel
www.aeroelectric.com<http://www.aeroelectric.com/>
www.buildersbooks.com<http://www.buildersbooks.com/>
www.kitlog.com<http://www.kitlog.com/>
www.homebuilthelp.com<http://www.homebuilthelp.com/>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List<http://www.matronics.com/N
avigator?Kitfox-List>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912 or 912S decision |
Thanks to all who wrote to offer their perspectives. It's not an easy
decision, but it's nice to know that either one should be fine. More
power at essentially the same weight is a very compelling argument for
the 912S. Still not sure what I'll do but the advice is very helpful.
Thanks,
Brent
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:24:26 -0800 "darinh" <gerns25@netscape.net>
writes:
>
> I guess I am the only one who likes power. I look at it this way,
> with the 912S, or the 914 for that matter, you can always throttle
> back and use the 80 horses, but when you need it, it is very nice to
> have that little extra push. Sure, you can make do with the 80
> horse and your performance will not be bad, mine wasn't in the Model
> III, but that is all you have and for me it wasn't enough.
>
> As for the lister earlier in the thread with the model III, I never
> saw anything over 100 mph ground speed unless I had a 20 mph
> tailwind. Granted my Model III was about 50 - 100 lbs heavier than
> most model III's and that may be the difference but with the Vne of
> 100 mph I wouldn't feel too comfortable with a 105 mph groundspeed,
> unless that is due to a tailwind. My typical cruise was around 75 -
> 80 mph IAS at 5000 rpm and I had almost every speed mod made.
>
> I am not badmouthing the 80 hp 912, it is an awesome engine and I
> had no problems with mine...I am simply saying it is easier to pull
> out power than to add ponies and there were times I would have loved
> to have the extra power.
>
> Darin Hawkes
> Series 7 (getting a 914)
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=73617#73617
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model III-A?? |
Noel says; To all the Kitfox flyers...
My kitfox is registered as a model III-A. The serial # is 736. I was
going
through some of the paper work the other day and noticed the original
order
was for a model II.
Noel, If you hit a dead end let me know and I may have the information
you need at the hanger.
Dee Young
Model II
Do Not Archive
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: Bluetooth GPS Receiver |
I found PocketFMS worked OK, but had some quirks and didn't have half of the functions
of AnywhereMap. Also, living in the Washington DC area, I absolutely
need to know that the Special Flight Restrictions are up to date and that the
map is dead-solid updated and accurate. I've used Anywheremap with a Bluetooth
receiver for a couple of years on a PocketPC and it's been good. Watch for a
sale (typically timed with OSH and Sun-N-Fun) and it'll be $95, but is worth
the full subscription price, anyway. While in-flight, it will give up-to-date
fuel prices for any airport you designate and then sort prices for all airports
within something like 40-50 miles. It's easily paid for itself in fuel savings.
My only caveat is to keep a paper map, even if it's out-dated, because I've had
a lock-up (frozen map) on my old Garmin (don't remember model #) and the PocketPC.
It's pretty apparent that the display stops moving and the world is still
moving past, but if the electronic map were all you had, you'd be left guessing
where the nearest airports and restricted airpace would be.
Bob
--------
Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=74139#74139
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 |
|
If your cloth further shrunk then all that means is it wasn't properly
shrunk in the first place.
I too have removed wrinkles form cloth. Doing so required removing and
patching an area of cloth.
Don't worry about following the herd ..... Follow the installation manual.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> ron schick
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:50 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Reshrunk fabric
>
>
> <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
>
> Thanks to the off list response of a nameless member I used a
> heat gun to
> reshrink some loose fabric on my rudder. The cutting off of the old
> fabric, patching, and painting would have in no way been a
> better repair
> than simply waving the magic wand at the problem. After
> patching in fabric
> on the fuselage I also used it to eliminate distant wrinkles
> that did not go
> away when the new fabric was shrunk. I understand the need for
> instructions, but sometimes a little common sense must
> prevail. Sorry,
> can't always follow the heard. Thanks again for the off
> list advice. Ron
> NB Ore
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Lowell:
The serial # is 736
I just checked the letter of conformity for the plane.... The first page
says model 2 the other pages say model 3... Go figure. The date was '92 I
guess that's why TC removed my AULA status.
Noel
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: Fire extinguisher Mount Location |
I was going to do my float endorsement ( a long story ) in a Stinson 108. A
lovely airplane with a few eccentricities. My problem wasn't height but
width. With the two of us in the cockpit there wasn't enough room for me to
hold the yoke all the way back. I did fly a few miles but had to hold the
left side of the yoke with my right hand ( right seat ). I suggested to my
friend that we take the doors off and that would give me the required room
to operate the controls properly. I find with the stick 6there is a lot
less unusable room in the cockpit. Two of us could have flown the Kitfox no
prob except I've been grounded until I get the endorsement.
I went to another friend and have done several hours in his Super Cub. It's
a lot closer to the Kitfox in the way it flies than the Stinson. Almost a
dirt bike for the skies.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom Jones
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:56 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Fire extinguisher Mount Location
>
>
>
> Thanks Noel, I know what you mean by "not much room". I am
> 6'3" and long legged. I have been taking lessons in a
> Stinson and now when I sit in my kitfox it seems kind of small.
> Tom Jones
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=74125#74125
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Dee:
What is the MTOW for your plane?
Do not archive
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dee Young
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
I have a model II the serial number is 345. There were several engine
options offered for the model II. The Rotax 582, Rotax 912 and the KFM
112.
There were also options available at the time which included two wing
tanks
and aluminum header tank to be located behind the seat. If you look in
the
archives you may find the documentation which serial numbers went with
which
model numbers. Hope this will help some.
Dee Young
Model II N345DY
KFM 112
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel <mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca> Loveys
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 8:45 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
To all the Kitfox flyers...
My kitfox is registered as a model III-A. The serial # is 736. I was
going
through some of the paper work the other day and noticed the original
order
was for a model II.
I am wondering where I can go to find out what has to be done to the
plane
to increase the MTOW from 950 to 1050 safely. Transport Canada has
agreed
to bump it up if I really want it. I would like to do that only if it
is
safe.
The question is this: Is my plane actually a model 2 1/2??? It has the
separate engine mount and the wing tanks with the small header tank
under
the panel. The wings are concave on the bottoms. At the time the plane
was
originally sold as a kit the Rotax 912 engine was an option.
I've checked with John McBean and he is as much in the dark as I am on
this
one..... I guess this one is extra unique.... I don't suppose Dan
Denney is
still
========================<
-- Please Support Your Lists This Month (And
Get the Annual link Free * AeroElectric
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List>
http://www.matron===================
===
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: Bluetooth GPS Receiver |
I wouldn't even consider flying in this neck of the woods without a VNC, a
decent 1:50,000 topo map and a good hand compass. GPS are nice and
convenient to fly with but I've seen them going ape when satellites have
been moved.
One day about four years ago I was parked on the side of a road watching the
GPS roam around a thirty mile radius at better than an indicated 100 mph. A
few hours later it was back rock steady.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:26 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Bluetooth GPS Receiver
>
>
>
> I found PocketFMS worked OK, but had some quirks and didn't
> have half of the functions of AnywhereMap. Also, living in
> the Washington DC area, I absolutely need to know that the
> Special Flight Restrictions are up to date and that the map
> is dead-solid updated and accurate. I've used Anywheremap
> with a Bluetooth receiver for a couple of years on a PocketPC
> and it's been good. Watch for a sale (typically timed with
> OSH and Sun-N-Fun) and it'll be $95, but is worth the full
> subscription price, anyway. While in-flight, it will give
> up-to-date fuel prices for any airport you designate and then
> sort prices for all airports within something like 40-50
> miles. It's easily paid for itself in fuel savings.
>
> My only caveat is to keep a paper map, even if it's
> out-dated, because I've had a lock-up (frozen map) on my old
> Garmin (don't remember model #) and the PocketPC. It's
> pretty apparent that the display stops moving and the world
> is still moving past, but if the electronic map were all you
> had, you'd be left guessing where the nearest airports and
> restricted airpace would be.
>
> Bob
>
> --------
> Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=74139#74139
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Model III-A?? |
MY model 2 is ser 347 the kit was started ain 98 and finished in 2000 I
also wonder what mods may make it a 1050 GW I will wach this one mal
michigan
do not archive
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 |
|
Not necessarily. It is acceptable to shrink Poly-Fiber to less than the
maximum temp. You can "finalize" the shrink at anywhere between 250 and 350
degrees. Beyond 350, it loosens up (as already stated). The Poly-Fiber
manual states that if the higher temps warp the structure - STOP! The STC is
good at 250 degrees (not that an STC means anything to us).
Case in point: My model 2 rudder warped badly when I shrunk it at 350
degrees. I have to redo it to get the hinges to line up properly.
Bradley
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:11 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Reshrunk fabric
If your cloth further shrunk then all that means is it wasn't properly
shrunk in the first place.
I too have removed wrinkles form cloth. Doing so required removing and
patching an area of cloth.
Don't worry about following the herd ..... Follow the installation manual.
Noel
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 |
|
Could it be that Denney Aircraft was in a "development" stage of the 3, and
you got an interim model between the 2 and 3? Maybe they just started
marketing the 3, but still had the model 2 paperwork and designation?
I guess in which case you could call it one or the other.
Does the vertical stab size give any clue?
Bradley
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:17 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
Lowell:
The serial # is 736
I just checked the letter of conformity for the plane.... The first page
says model 2 the other pages say model 3... Go figure. The date was '92 I
guess that's why TC removed my AULA status.
Noel
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: Model III-A?? |
wing strength up dates would increase the GW. not gas tanks or
interior options larger rutter would help w/ cross wind capabilities
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: Reshrunk fabric |
An important thing to consider here is that the Kitfox manual calls for a
shrink temperature lower than the maximum shrink temperature in the
Polyfiber manual at least in the Model IV. There has been some discussion
on this in the past some advocating the temps in the Polyfiber book and some
the temps in the SS manual. Some of the structure in our airplanes is
subject to distortion with over shrunk fabric - the wasp waist seen in some
aft fuselage sections as an example.
After the fact, if it came to replacing fabric and trying a hot air gun, I
think I would try the hot air gun as the benefit might save tons of work and
if it doesn't work, nothing lost.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:11 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Reshrunk fabric
>
> If your cloth further shrunk then all that means is it wasn't properly
> shrunk in the first place.
>
> I too have removed wrinkles form cloth. Doing so required removing and
> patching an area of cloth.
>
> Don't worry about following the herd ..... Follow the installation
> manual.
>
> Noel
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> ron schick
>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:50 AM
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Kitfox-List: Reshrunk fabric
>>
>>
>> <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
>>
>> Thanks to the off list response of a nameless member I used a
>> heat gun to
>> reshrink some loose fabric on my rudder. The cutting off of the old
>> fabric, patching, and painting would have in no way been a
>> better repair
>> than simply waving the magic wand at the problem. After
>> patching in fabric
>> on the fuselage I also used it to eliminate distant wrinkles
>> that did not go
>> away when the new fabric was shrunk. I understand the need for
>> instructions, but sometimes a little common sense must
>> prevail. Sorry,
>> can't always follow the heard. Thanks again for the off
>> list advice. Ron
>> NB Ore
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
What I understand from the original builder is the kit was ordered as one
model but before it was shipped it was upgraded to the next model. I
understand there were some minor changes made to the fuselage frame. As to
whether or not those changes included beefing up the spar pass throughs I
don't know.
The main concern to me is whether or not I can safely increase the MTOW to
1050 lb. If not what would I have to do to make the increase? It may not
be worth the aggravation ;-)
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bradley M Webb
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 11:30 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
Could it be that Denney Aircraft was in a "development" stage of the 3, and
you got an interim model between the 2 and 3? Maybe they just started
marketing the 3, but still had the model 2 paperwork and designation?
I guess in which case you could call it one or the other.
Does the vertical stab size give any clue?
Bradley
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:17 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
Lowell:
The serial # is 736
I just checked the letter of conformity for the plane.... The first page
says model 2 the other pages say model 3... Go figure. The date was '92 I
guess that's why TC removed my AULA status.
Noel
www.aeroelectric.com
www.buildersbooks.com
www.kitlog.com
www.homebuilthelp.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
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 |
|
I quite agree. I only put in the equipment that is in my plane to give
others a bit of an idea as to what my plane has installed. I was hoping
they might be able to tell me what to look for in a plane that has the
1050
lb. MTOW. If my plane confirms to what is expected then I will proceed
with
getting the registration changed. TC says I can do that but I'll only
do it
if it's safe to do so.. Not that they would let me do it if it was not
safe.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Malcolmbru@aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
wing strength up dates would increase the GW. not gas tanks or
interior options larger rutter would help w/ cross wind capabilities
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Reshrunk fabric |
[quote="lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net"]
Some of the structure in our airplanes is
subject to distortion with over shrunk fabric - the wasp waist seen in some
aft fuselage sections as an example.
The wing trailing edges are another example. I reinforced mine with aluminum tubing.
This is described in the builder's manual as an option, depending on how
much the builder wishes to shrink the fabric.
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=74192#74192
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 |
|
I remember reading some where the most tension the polyfibre cloth will
develop in shrinking is some where in the vicinity of 4 lb./ sq. in. The
older Egyptian cottons could generate well over twenty lb./ sq. in..
I've tried the heat gun and found there was no way I could regulate the
temperature applied to the cloth. A calibrated iron @ 350F can be left on
the cloth for a considerable time with no damage. Polyfibre says it can be
left there indefinitely but I wouldn't try that.
I have a set of temperature calibrating wax sticks ( the blue one melts at
325F the red one at 350F) that allow me to instantly calibrate my iron to
between 325F and 350F. All I have to do is make sure the blue stick melts
on the face of the iron and the red one doesn't. If I remember correctly
these sticks were made to calibrate the temperature of photographic thermal
print heads that used to write data on the back of photographs.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Lowell Fitt
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 11:57 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Reshrunk fabric
>
>
> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>
> An important thing to consider here is that the Kitfox manual
> calls for a
> shrink temperature lower than the maximum shrink temperature in the
> Polyfiber manual at least in the Model IV. There has been
> some discussion
> on this in the past some advocating the temps in the
> Polyfiber book and some
> the temps in the SS manual. Some of the structure in our
> airplanes is
> subject to distortion with over shrunk fabric - the wasp
> waist seen in some
> aft fuselage sections as an example.
>
> After the fact, if it came to replacing fabric and trying a
> hot air gun, I
> think I would try the hot air gun as the benefit might save
> tons of work and
> if it doesn't work, nothing lost.
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:11 AM
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Reshrunk fabric
>
>
> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> >
> > If your cloth further shrunk then all that means is it
> wasn't properly
> > shrunk in the first place.
> >
> > I too have removed wrinkles form cloth. Doing so required
> removing and
> > patching an area of cloth.
> >
> > Don't worry about following the herd ..... Follow the installation
> > manual.
> >
> > Noel
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> >> ron schick
> >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:50 AM
> >> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >> Subject: Kitfox-List: Reshrunk fabric
> >>
> >>
> >> <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
> >>
> >> Thanks to the off list response of a nameless member I used a
> >> heat gun to
> >> reshrink some loose fabric on my rudder. The cutting off
> of the old
> >> fabric, patching, and painting would have in no way been a
> >> better repair
> >> than simply waving the magic wand at the problem. After
> >> patching in fabric
> >> on the fuselage I also used it to eliminate distant wrinkles
> >> that did not go
> >> away when the new fabric was shrunk. I understand the need for
> >> instructions, but sometimes a little common sense must
> >> prevail. Sorry,
> >> can't always follow the heard. Thanks again for the off
> >> list advice. Ron
> >> NB Ore
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: FAA aircraft chart for download |
Steve sez:
>Federal Register: July 27, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 143) Page 44771-44882...
The Federal Register is NOT the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
where the FARs live. Where is a definition of "maximum takeoff
weight" in the FARs?
Guy sez:
>Mike. I'm holding you personally responsible for all of Steve's
>subsequent responses. ;-) (Thanks for the definition, though, it
>adds a little clarity.)
Ouch! Yep, you're right. :-)
Mike G.
N728KF
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: Bluetooth GPS Receiver |
[Slightly off-topic]
On Nov 13, 2006, at 2:56 PM, Bob wrote:
> I found PocketFMS worked OK, but had some quirks and didn't have half
> of the functions of AnywhereMap.
That's interesting, Bob, because I find PocketFMS to have already too
many functions. To be honest, I have not tried AnywhereMap and I am a
beta-tester of PocketFMS so, I am involved with its working.
But I certainly have no preference and, in my opinion, it is healthy
that Garmin and Jeppesen have competitors - any competitor, because it
serves us, pilot, to keep the price down. Something to do with
capitalism and the reason I'd rather live in Norway or the US than ...
North Korea! :-)
Anyway, I use PocketFMS mostly for the moving map and the ability to
see myself in relation to the different airspaces. I know that, e.g.
the next release of PocketFMS will come with weather radar overlay so
that you'll see not only METAR but the coverage of rain regions. I am
not sure I'd want to see it, though, usually the weather is something I
do before I take off.
There are many people who request many things on the PocketFMS forum.
Once, someone complained because he has a piston engine running JetGas
and it has a different specific weight than AvGas. Or, the weight and
balance function of the program calculates the fuel weight to be 0.71
kg per liter, which is heavier. Someone then answered that even with
full tanks, the difference in the calculation would be only 8 kg,
hardly something worth considering.
So, my opinion is that pilots are not necessarily computer nerds and
that ... less is more. But maybe AnywhareMap has a cool function that
is missing in PocketFMS. Do you have an example?
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA aircraft chart for download |
Steve -
Its lunch and Im going to answer this once, but agree with Lowell that you said
youd drop this.
There once was a lot less definition regarding experimental aircraft certification
and the passage that you cite comes from those early days. In the 1950s you
could get an experimental into the air with very minimal paperwork, but your
Kitfox was designed LONG after that time. The passage you cite is based on
the following phrase from the Federal Register: "lacking a definition of maximum
takeoff weight. This passage refers to these old exceptions, such as a nasty-flying
old replica of a WWI fighter I know of. Or a classic Formula One airframe
without a hot-rod engine. Its easy to understand why the FAA didnt want
a Sport Pilot trying to fly either of those.
For anything since those early days and that limiting passage, the FAA Application for Airworthiness (Form 8130-6, http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8130-6d.pdf) is the certification basis for the 8130-7 Airworthiness Certificate that is in your airplane. The bottom section of 8130-6 contains the required sign-offs for the airworthiness documentation. The block contains the sign-off that the airplane actually has weight and balance documentation, which obviously includes a statement of gross weight. Your 8130-7 came with the spelled-out operating limitations and those directly or indirectly cite your W&B limits. There are other ways to get to the same point through Part 21.190(b)(4)(i) and Part 91, which also say that certification of a LSA must include The aircraft's operating instructions, again, from the bottom of the 8130-6. If you exceed that gross weight and get ramp checked, you will be cited for violating FAR 91.9 as a minimum.
With respect to defining maximum takeoff weight, I used the word gross above because
it is the most commonly found word, but your POH may use the term maximum
allowable or something similar. The reason that the FAA occasionally uses
the passage maximum takeoff weight is not because you might want to reduce your
takeoff weight, so you leave the kitchen sink at home. Its because many airplanes
can take off heavier than they are allowed to land. However, these are
typically in the transport class and again the requirements are covered by the
limits spelled out in their W&B documentation.
People have repeatedly and correctly told you (including citing the EAA synopsis), that you could initially certificate the airplane for less than it was designed for and be at LSA weight, but once certificated, the FAA will not let you re-define the weight. Heres an FAA presentation from Sun-N-Fun this year that says the same at least twice: https://www.redstonemwr.com/PUBLICPDF/flying/LSAAirworthiness.pdf
I will not debate or respond further. Since you are in a Detroit suburb, nobody
on this list has supported you, and youve been asked to drop it, I ask that
all further discussion of your interpretations be with an airworthiness inspector
at the Detroit FSDO at (734) 487-7222.
Bob
--------
Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=74216#74216
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: FAA aircraft chart for download |
21.190 Issue of a special airworthiness certificate for a light-sport category
aircraft
Good,,,,, cept't we that't has nothing to do with a Amateur-built airworthiness
certificate issued under
21.191 Experimental certificates
g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major portion of
which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction
project solely for their own education or recreation.
We are not LSA compliant, just trying to meet the drfinition in 1.1
BIG big big difference. Don't mix the apples with the oranges.
"This passage refers to these old exceptions"
Kindly show me to that sir, please. Show me. Can't.
"Since you are in a Detroit suburb, nobody on this list has supported you"
Excuse Me?? Care to expand on that statement?
Again....., What is the opinion of the chart?
BTW, this is a forum, not a "club". Sorry you don't approve of fact finding and
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=74235#74235
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 |
|
MessageIt is registered as 1050lbs.
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel Loveys<mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com<mailto:kitfox-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 7:32 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
Dee:
What is the MTOW for your plane?
Do not archive
Noel
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model III-A?? |
MessageIn the POH for the Model II the gross is listed at 950 lbs. and
the MTOW is listed at 1050 lbs.
Dee
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel Loveys<mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com<mailto:kitfox-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:39 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
What I understand from the original builder is the kit was ordered as
one model but before it was shipped it was upgraded to the next model.
I understand there were some minor changes made to the fuselage frame.
As to whether or not those changes included beefing up the spar pass
throughs I don't know.
The main concern to me is whether or not I can safely increase the
MTOW to 1050 lb. If not what would I have to do to make the increase?
It may not be worth the aggravation ;-)
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bradley M
Webb
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 11:30 AM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
Could it be that Denney Aircraft was in a "development" stage of the
3, and you got an interim model between the 2 and 3? Maybe they just
started marketing the 3, but still had the model 2 paperwork and
designation?
I guess in which case you could call it one or the other.
Does the vertical stab size give any clue?
Bradley
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:17 AM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
Lowell:
The serial # is 736
I just checked the letter of conformity for the plane.... The first
page says model 2 the other pages say model 3... Go figure. The date
was '92 I guess that's why TC removed my AULA status.
Noel
www.aeroelectric.comwww.kitlog.comhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitf
ox-List
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
www.aeroelectric.com<http://www.aeroelectric.com/>
www.buildersbooks.com<http://www.buildersbooks.com/>
www.homebuilthelp.com<http://www.homebuilthelp.com/>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List<http://www.matronics.com/N
avigator?Kitfox-List>
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: Model III-A?? |
Noel,
I understand that on the IV, it can be changed from the 1050 grwt to the
1200 grwt by drilling the lower strut attach brackets and inserting a 4130
rod threaded at both ends through the carry through tube with washers and
nuts securing it in place. That strengthens the carry through. The rest of
the mod is the thicker wall lift struts. This from Frank Miller. Don't
know if the present factory would authorize these mods.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 7:39 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
> What I understand from the original builder is the kit was ordered as one
> model but before it was shipped it was upgraded to the next model. I
> understand there were some minor changes made to the fuselage frame. As
> to
> whether or not those changes included beefing up the spar pass throughs I
> don't know.
>
> The main concern to me is whether or not I can safely increase the MTOW to
> 1050 lb. If not what would I have to do to make the increase? It may not
> be worth the aggravation ;-)
>
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bradley M
> Webb
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 11:30 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
>
>
> Could it be that Denney Aircraft was in a "development" stage of the 3,
> and
> you got an interim model between the 2 and 3? Maybe they just started
> marketing the 3, but still had the model 2 paperwork and designation?
>
>
> I guess in which case you could call it one or the other.
>
>
> Does the vertical stab size give any clue?
>
>
> Bradley
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:17 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
>
>
> Lowell:
>
> The serial # is 736
>
> I just checked the letter of conformity for the plane.... The first page
> says model 2 the other pages say model 3... Go figure. The date was '92
> I
> guess that's why TC removed my AULA status.
>
> Noel
>
>
> www.aeroelectric.com
> www.buildersbooks.com
> www.kitlog.com
> www.homebuilthelp.com
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>
>
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model III-A?? |
MessageModel 2 serial numbers ranged from #258 to #748. This might help
some too.
Dee
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Bradley M Webb<mailto:bmwebb@cox.net>
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com<mailto:kitfox-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:00 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
Could it be that Denney Aircraft was in a "development" stage of the
3, and you got an interim model between the 2 and 3? Maybe they just
started marketing the 3, but still had the model 2 paperwork and
designation?
I guess in which case you could call it one or the other.
Does the vertical stab size give any clue?
Bradley
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:17 AM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
Lowell:
The serial # is 736
I just checked the letter of conformity for the plane.... The first
page says model 2 the other pages say model 3... Go figure. The date
was '92 I guess that's why TC removed my AULA status.
Noel
www.aeroelectric.comwww.kitlog.comhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitf
ox-List
www.aeroelectric.com<http://www.aeroelectric.com/>
www.buildersbooks.com<http://www.buildersbooks.com/>
www.homebuilthelp.com<http://www.homebuilthelp.com/>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List<http://www.matronics.com/N
avigator?Kitfox-List>
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: | Re: Model III-A?? |
The third item is the spar reinforcement inserts.
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 |
|
Thanks Lowell:
I have had a few answers back from Dee Young. His model II has a gross
weight of 950 and a MTOW of 1050. I always thought the MTOW and gross were
the same... I'll ask Dee
In the mean time I'll have a look at my lower strut pass through.
I'm beginning to think what I actually have is a model 3 beta :-)
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Lowell Fitt
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:59 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
>
>
> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Noel,
>
> I understand that on the IV, it can be changed from the 1050
> grwt to the
> 1200 grwt by drilling the lower strut attach brackets and
> inserting a 4130
> rod threaded at both ends through the carry through tube with
> washers and
> nuts securing it in place. That strengthens the carry
> through. The rest of
> the mod is the thicker wall lift struts. This from Frank
> Miller. Don't
> know if the present factory would authorize these mods.
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 7:39 AM
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
>
>
> > What I understand from the original builder is the kit was
> ordered as one
> > model but before it was shipped it was upgraded to the next
> model. I
> > understand there were some minor changes made to the
> fuselage frame. As
> > to
> > whether or not those changes included beefing up the spar
> pass throughs I
> > don't know.
> >
> > The main concern to me is whether or not I can safely
> increase the MTOW to
> > 1050 lb. If not what would I have to do to make the
> increase? It may not
> > be worth the aggravation ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > Noel
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of Bradley M
> > Webb
> > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 11:30 AM
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
> >
> >
> >
> > Could it be that Denney Aircraft was in a "development"
> stage of the 3,
> > and
> > you got an interim model between the 2 and 3? Maybe they
> just started
> > marketing the 3, but still had the model 2 paperwork and
> designation?
> >
> >
> >
> > I guess in which case you could call it one or the other.
> >
> >
> >
> > Does the vertical stab size give any clue?
> >
> >
> >
> > Bradley
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> >
> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of Noel Loveys
> > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:17 AM
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
> >
> >
> >
> > Lowell:
> >
> > The serial # is 736
> >
> > I just checked the letter of conformity for the plane....
> The first page
> > says model 2 the other pages say model 3... Go figure.
> The date was '92
> > I
> > guess that's why TC removed my AULA status.
> >
> > Noel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > www.aeroelectric.com
> > www.buildersbooks.com
> > www.kitlog.com
> > www.homebuilthelp.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Dee: I hate to look so stunned but...
I thought gross weight and MTOW were the same thing. I guess I've missed
something here. How does the POH differentiate between the MTOW and Gross
weight? The extra hundred pounds will allow me to carry a real passenger.
(half tanks)
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dee Young
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
In the POH for the Model II the gross is listed at 950 lbs. and the MTOW is
listed at 1050 lbs.
Dee
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel <mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca> Loveys
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:39 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
What I understand from the original builder is the kit was ordered as one
model but before it was shipped it was upgraded to the next model. I
understand there were some minor changes made to the fuselage frame. As to
whether or not those changes included beefing up the spar pass throughs I
don't know.
The main concern to me is whether or not I can safely increase the MTOW to
1050 lb. If not what would I have to do to make the increase? It may not
be worth the aggravation ;-)
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bradley M Webb
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 11:30 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
Could it be that Denney Aircraft was in a "development" stage of the 3, and
you got an interim model between the 2 and 3? Maybe they just started
marketing the 3, but still had the model 2 paperwork and designation?
I guess in which case you could call it one or the other.
Does the vertical stab size give any clue?
Bradley
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:17 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
Lowell:
The serial # is 736
I just checked the letter of conformity for the plane.... The first page
says model 2 the other pages say model 3... Go figure. The date was '92 I
guess that's why TC removed my AULA status.
Noel
www.aeroelectric.com
www.buildersbooks.com
www.kitlog.com
www.homebuilthelp.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
title=http://www.buildersbooks.com/
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Vixen: Warp Drive Cracked (Continental Engine) |
Hello,
I have a Series 5 Vixen with a Continental I0-240 (125HP, fuel injected) engine.
Prop is a Warp Drive 70", 3 blade taper-tipped, nickle leading edge). Total
time is 260 hours. This past weekend (during an out of state trip) I found
a crack in one of the collars near the hub. After removal of the prop we found
a second blade with a simular crack. Warp Drive will not cover becuase of the
"high impulse" engine. This was the recommended prop...way back when... According
to Warp I could purchase two new blades! This was really not what I
wanted to hear. [Crying or Very sad]
My Warp system is now useless. Please understand that I am not knocking Warp Drive.
I have flown 1500+ hours behind (and in front of) their product. It's
just the combination of a high (sharp) impulse engine and their non-flexing, lightweight
prop set-up. At this point I can NOT recommend using Warp with this
particular engine. ...I'm not sure about other Continental/Lycoming engines???
Today I ordered a 70" two blade Ivoprop Magnum propeller. It will have the in-flight
adjustable option. I look forward to seeing how this works out. I would
appreciate any input regarding this problem...and also my choice in replacement
propeller. If anyone is interested I could take some pictures of the cracked
collars. Let me know. Thanks!
:D
--------
FlyboyTR
Mobile, AL
Skystar Vixen
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=74316#74316
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: | Jim Shumaker VGs |
Jim,
What VG configuration did you end up with and what wing do you have?
Did your try to optimize it, or place it as told? I tried to find it in
the archives, which was helpful, but I couldn't find the final answer.
Thanks,
larry
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vixen: Warp Drive Cracked (Continental Engine) |
Warp had a problem with cracked collars several years
ago and strengthened the hubs. I wonder if yours is
one of the old ones. I have a picture of one of the
cracked hubs on my home computer, but not there now.
I thought that Warp had offered replacements for the
lighter hubs back then, but maybe not.
Yours is not the first in any event, but if this is a
newer hub, it is the first of those I have heard
about. Good thing you caught it.
Several people are using wooden props with good
success, but I think your Ivo may do well. Please let
us know how you like it, if you go that way.
Also John McBean carries those props, so consider him
a source that supports KitFoxs too.
Kurt S.
--- FlyboyTR <flyboytr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Hello,
> I have a Series 5 Vixen with a Continental I0-240
> (125HP, fuel injected) engine. Prop is a Warp Drive
> 70", 3 blade taper-tipped, nickle leading edge).
> Total time is 260 hours. This past weekend (during
> an out of state trip) I found a crack in one of the
> collars near the hub..........
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: Model III-A?? |
Ask Steve? : )
Lynn
do not archive
On Monday, November 13, 2006, at 04:23 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
> Dee:I hate to look so stunned but...
>
> I thought gross weight and MTOW were the same thing. I guess I've
> missed something here. How does the POH differentiate between the
> MTOW and Gross weight? The extra hundred pounds will allow me to
> carry a real passenger. (half tanks)
>
>
>
> Noel
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dee Young
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:50 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
>
> In the POH for the Model II the gross is listed at 950 lbs. and the
> MTOW is listed at 1050 lbs.
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 |
|
MessageActually POH says "Rate of climb (dual) 1050 lbs. gross". Which I
interpreted to be MTOW gross as being 1050 lbs. Sorry didn't say that
right did I?
Dee
Do not archive
From: Noel Loveys<mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com<mailto:kitfox-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 2:23 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model III-A??
Dee: I hate to look so stunned but...
I thought gross weight and MTOW were the same thing. I guess I've
missed something here. How does the POH differentiate between the MTOW
and Gross weight? The extra hundred pounds will allow me to carry a
real passenger. (half tanks)
Noel
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: | Re Gross weight and Model |
To all the Kitfox flyers...
My kitfox is registered as a model III-A. The serial # is 736. I was
going
through some of the paper work the other day and noticed the original
order
was for a model II.
I am wondering where I can go to find out what has to be done to the
plane
to increase the MTOW from 950 to 1050 safely. Transport Canada has
agreed
to bump it up if I really want it. I would like to do that only if it
is
safe.
The question is this: Is my plane actually a model 2 1/2??? It has the
separate engine mount and the wing tanks with the small header tank
under
the panel. The wings are concave on the bottoms. At the time the plane
was
originally sold as a kit the Rotax 912 engine was an option.
I've checked with John McBean and he is as much in the dark as I am on
this
one..... I guess this one is extra unique.... I don't suppose Dan
Denney is
still around??
Noel
Hi ! Noel,
according to Ed Downs "Kitfox Pilots Guide" Model 2
was serial numbers 258 to 448 and Model 3's are 749 to 1215.
Ed also states the changes between Models 2 and 3 as structural to
improve flight characteristics and provide a platform for the more
powerful 912 engine. A larger and more powerful vert stab and rudder
were added as well as larger stronger lift struts and spar carry through
tube in the fuselage.
As it happens I also find similar confusion with my plane. It was
built by a mechanical engineeer and is his second effort. What happeneed
is the first and original plane developed a huge fuel leak in flight
over tiger country due to an aluminium wing tank splitting. He put it
down basically wrecking it and writing it off. As this was not the first
instance of aluminium tanks doing this sort of thing he had a good case
and threatened to sue the factory. My understanding is they gave him a
new kit for free, however the log book merely has an entry saying
"fuselage replaced, same plane same numbers." The plane was always
registerd General Aviation and I believe he did it this way to avoid a
lot of beaurocratic paperwork etc. However when I bought it I changed it
to Ultralight registration. I have no issues with all this but it is now
hard also for me to say exactly what is what with my plane. A further
interesting point is that the original plane that was put down in the
scrub has apparently been rebuilt and is flying. So one question that
arises is, is it using the same serial number as me ? What really are
the specifications for both planes ? I don't think any of this affects
me but it is interesting.
Rex.
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vixen: Warp Drive Cracked (Continental Engine) |
D
I've heard before that the warp props weren't recommended for what I call
"the Harley type" direct drive engines. Those long strokes, at low idle,
hammering on the prop are just too much for them and I was told there are
some instances of blade separation on record. Fortunately you were able to
spot the cracks before your day became a nightmare. Good job!
Perhaps its a blessing in disguise because once you get rolling with the Ivo
Mag inflight I don't think you'll ever look back. IMO inflight adjustable
is the only way to go. No compromises.
Good luck and let us know how it works out for you.
Deke
ps: Please give us at least a first name on your posts. Nothing to worry
about here. :-)
>
> Hello,
> I have a Series 5 Vixen with a Continental I0-240 (125HP, fuel injected)
engine. Prop is a Warp Drive 70", 3 blade taper-tipped, nickle leading
edge). Total time is 260 hours. This past weekend (during an out of state
trip) I found a crack in one of the collars near the hub. After removal of
the prop we found a second blade with a simular crack. Warp Drive will not
cover becuase of the "high impulse" engine. This was the recommended
prop...way back when... According to Warp I could purchase two new blades!
This was really not what I wanted to hear. [Crying or Very sad]
>
> My Warp system is now useless. Please understand that I am not knocking
Warp Drive. I have flown 1500+ hours behind (and in front of) their
product. It's just the combination of a high (sharp) impulse engine and
their non-flexing, lightweight prop set-up. At this point I can NOT
recommend using Warp with this particular engine. ...I'm not sure about
other Continental/Lycoming engines???
>
> Today I ordered a 70" two blade Ivoprop Magnum propeller. It will have
the in-flight adjustable option. I look forward to seeing how this works
out. I would appreciate any input regarding this problem...and also my
choice in replacement propeller. If anyone is interested I could take some
pictures of the cracked collars. Let me know. Thanks!
> :D
>
> --------
> FlyboyTR
> Mobile, AL
> Skystar Vixen
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=74316#74316
>
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Gross weight and model |
<"according to Ed Downs "Kitfox Pilots Guide" Model 2 was serial numbers
258 to 448 and Model 3's are 749 to 1215.">
Interesting. My Model 2 was #606.
Deke
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re Gross weight and Model |
The history page will give a little info..
http://kitfoxaircraft.com/KitfoxHistory.htm
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
208.337.5111
www.kitfoxaircraft.com
"It's not how Fast... It's how Fun!"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rex Shaw
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:39 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re Gross weight and Model
To all the Kitfox flyers...
My kitfox is registered as a model III-A. The serial # is 736. I was going
through some of the paper work the other day and noticed the original order
was for a model II.
I am wondering where I can go to find out what has to be done to the plane
to increase the MTOW from 950 to 1050 safely. Transport Canada has agreed
to bump it up if I really want it. I would like to do that only if it is
safe.
The question is this: Is my plane actually a model 2 1/2??? It has the
separate engine mount and the wing tanks with the small header tank under
the panel. The wings are concave on the bottoms. At the time the plane was
originally sold as a kit the Rotax 912 engine was an option.
I've checked with John McBean and he is as much in the dark as I am on this
one..... I guess this one is extra unique.... I don't suppose Dan Denney is
still around??
Noel
Hi ! Noel,
according to Ed Downs "Kitfox Pilots Guide" Model 2 was
serial numbers 258 to 448 and Model 3's are 749 to 1215.
Ed also states the changes between Models 2 and 3 as structural to improve
flight characteristics and provide a platform for the more powerful 912
engine. A larger and more powerful vert stab and rudder were added as well
as larger stronger lift struts and spar carry through tube in the fuselage.
As it happens I also find similar confusion with my plane. It was built by
a mechanical engineeer and is his second effort. What happeneed is the first
and original plane developed a huge fuel leak in flight over tiger country
due to an aluminium wing tank splitting. He put it down basically wrecking
it and writing it off. As this was not the first instance of aluminium tanks
doing this sort of thing he had a good case and threatened to sue the
factory. My understanding is they gave him a new kit for free, however the
log book merely has an entry saying "fuselage replaced, same plane same
numbers." The plane was always registerd General Aviation and I believe he
did it this way to avoid a lot of beaurocratic paperwork etc. However when I
bought it I changed it to Ultralight registration. I have no issues with all
this but it is now hard also for me to say exactly what is what with my
plane. A further interesting point is that the original plane that was put
down in the scrub has apparently been rebuilt and is flying. So one question
that arises is, is it using the same serial number as me ? What really are
the specifications for both planes ? I don't think any of this affects me
but it is interesting.
Rex.
<http://www.buildersbooks.com>
<http://www.homebuilthelp.com>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
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 |
|
After a few problems I finally got an X ponder installed in 205AK but in the
process ended up with another serviceable unit. The long story short, I
ordered a Narco AT50 A and got it but it was over 30 days before it was
installed and found to be broken at which point I ordered another one from
the avionics shop to get the plane flying. Later I found out that Dodson
would not return the money just send out another unit. I will have just
under $400.00 in it including a bench check from the avionics shop. It will
be a good slide in replacement for someone who has a broken Narco or has a
tray. If anyone is interested please let me know.
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vixen: Warp Drive Cracked (Continental Engine) |
Here's the "Service Alert Skystar put out in 2001
Tom Jones
Service Alert
SERVICE ALERT 2001-01
It has come to the attention of our technical service staff that a small number
of customers operating the Kitfox aircraft with the Continental IO-240 have experienced
difficulties with the Warp Drive propeller commonly used with this
engine. Reports have been received stating that cracks have been observed on
the aluminum collar located at the hub end of the propeller blade. These cracks
have been located close to the hub area.
Warp Drive has been informed of these reports and is investigating the issues involved.
It is thought that the combination of a low inertia propeller coupled
to a high compression engine may result in abnormally high propeller blade shock
being experienced at low idle RPMs.
SkyStar aircraft recommends that all Kitfox owners operating the Continental IO-240
with a Warp Drive propeller carefully inspect the propeller hub and collar
area prior to each flight for evidence of cracks. It is also recommended that
ground idle RPM be maintained at a speed of not less that 1100 RPM. We ask
that individuals finding evidence of cracks contact SkyStar's Technical Support
staff at (208) 454-1665 or e-mail Technical support at support@skystar.com.
Warp Drive will be offering more information as it becomes available.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=74415#74415
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jim Shumaker VGs |
Larry=0A=0AI had a reference point that I started from but I applied them s
everal ways. I tried the 10% cord and found it to be way too far back. I
wound up with them at 3 inches (horizontal) from the leading edge. Will pr
obably go a little closer to the leading edge the next time I apply them.
I tried applying fewer than 100 but that did not work as well. Put one pai
r in each swale between the ribs and false ribs.=0A=0AJim Shumaker=0A=0A=0A
----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Larry Martin <CrownLJ@verizon.net>=0ATo
: Kitfox-List@matronics.com=0ASent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:40:54 PM=0A
Subject: Kitfox-List: Jim Shumaker VGs=0A=0A=0AJim,=0A =0A What VG configu
ration did you end up with and what wing do you have? Did your try to opti
mize it, or place it as told? I tried to find it in the archives, which wa
s helpful, but I couldn't find the final answer.=0A =0AThanks,=0Alarry=0A
=
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jim Shumaker VGs |
Larry=0A=0AI have the mode III undercambered wing.=0A=0AJim Shumaker=0A=0A
=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Larry Martin <CrownLJ@verizon.net>
=0ATo: Kitfox-List@matronics.com=0ASent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:40:54
PM=0ASubject: Kitfox-List: Jim Shumaker VGs=0A=0A=0AJim,=0A =0A What VG co
nfiguration did you end up with and what wing do you have? Did your try to
optimize it, or place it as told? I tried to find it in the archives, whi
ch was helpful, but I couldn't find the final answer.=0A =0AThanks,=0Alarry
===
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vixen: Warp Drive Cracked (Continental Engine) |
I probably should clarify that the "service Alert" I posted above was from the
old now gone Skystar. The phone and email listed therein will not get you anywhere.
Tom Jones
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=74422#74422
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jim Shumaker VGs |
Thanks Jim.
What do you recommend for the spanwise spacing between pairs? What
was your speed reduction?
Thanks again,
larry
Message 46
| 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: Gross weight and model |
my model 2 is serial # 718
john perry
----- Original Message -----
From: Fox5flyer
To: Kitfox List
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 7:59 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Gross weight and model
<"according to Ed Downs "Kitfox Pilots Guide" Model 2 was serial
numbers 258 to 448 and Model 3's are 749 to 1215.">
Interesting. My Model 2 was #606.
Deke
Message 47
| 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 |
|
Noel the fabric as mentioned by others can not be shrunk to it's max
potential without damaging many areas on a Kitfox. If 3" distance with a
heat gun is not affective then 2 3/4" then 2 1/2" etc. I found it easy to
use the desired distance for my gun of about 1 1/2". This probably gave
the same heat as the original shrink and the same tension on the fabric.
Worked for me. Ron NB Ore.
>From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Reshrunk fabric
>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:41:03 -0330
>
>
>If your cloth further shrunk then all that means is it wasn't properly
>shrunk in the first place.
>
>I too have removed wrinkles form cloth. Doing so required removing and
>patching an area of cloth.
>
>Don't worry about following the herd ..... Follow the installation manual.
>
>Noel
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> > ron schick
> > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:50 AM
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Reshrunk fabric
> >
> >
> > <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
> >
> > Thanks to the off list response of a nameless member I used a
> > heat gun to
> > reshrink some loose fabric on my rudder. The cutting off of the old
> > fabric, patching, and painting would have in no way been a
> > better repair
> > than simply waving the magic wand at the problem. After
> > patching in fabric
> > on the fuselage I also used it to eliminate distant wrinkles
> > that did not go
> > away when the new fabric was shrunk. I understand the need for
> > instructions, but sometimes a little common sense must
> > prevail. Sorry,
> > can't always follow the heard. Thanks again for the off
> > list advice. Ron
> > NB Ore
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
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! --
|