---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 11/21/06: 32 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:55 AM - Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 (ramrod25) 2. 06:13 AM - Re: prop pitch and reduction (kirk hull) 3. 06:23 AM - Re: Re: Repairs (kirk hull) 4. 07:09 AM - Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 (Paul Seehafer) 5. 07:16 AM - Re: Repairs (Tom Jones) 6. 07:25 AM - Re: prop pitch and reduction (JC Propellerdesign) 7. 07:35 AM - Re: Open letter to the list administrator (Michael Gibbs) 8. 08:25 AM - Re: prop pitch and reduction (kirk hull) 9. 08:26 AM - Re: Vixen: Warp Drive Cracked (Continental Engine) (FlyboyTR) 10. 09:01 AM - Re: Re: Vixen: Warp Drive Cracked (Continental Engine) (wingsdown) 11. 09:22 AM - Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 (ramrod25) 12. 09:31 AM - Re: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 (John Marzulli) 13. 11:37 AM - Re: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 (Paul Seehafer) 14. 11:37 AM - Re: OT Got the call... (Andrew Matthaey) 15. 11:58 AM - Re: OT Got the call... (debrun26@juno.com) 16. 12:27 PM - Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 (ramrod25) 17. 12:58 PM - Re: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 (Michel Verheughe) 18. 01:15 PM - Re: Glare Shield/Dash (Cudnohufsky's) 19. 02:21 PM - Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 (Sjklerks@aol.com) 20. 02:21 PM - Re: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 (dave) 21. 03:08 PM - Re: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 (kurt schrader) 22. 04:03 PM - Tail Drager poem (Tom Jones) 23. 04:22 PM - Tri gear or Tail dragger ? (Rex Shaw) 24. 04:52 PM - Re: Tri gear or Tail dragger ? (wingsdown) 25. 04:52 PM - Re: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 (john perry) 26. 04:55 PM - Re: Tri gear or Tail dragger ? (dave) 27. 04:56 PM - Re: Need Door Hold upper for Fox1V (ROBERT E SIMON) 28. 05:23 PM - Re: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 (Roger McConnell) 29. 06:05 PM - Re: Tri gear or Tail dragger ? (Colin Durey) 30. 06:14 PM - Re: Tri gear or Tail dragger ? (Lynn Matteson) 31. 07:35 PM - Need Muffler Source for Model IV 912 UL (Jimmie Blackwell) 32. 09:16 PM - Re: Need Muffler Source for Model IV 912 UL (Randy Daughenbaugh) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:55:46 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 From: "ramrod25" Dave - thanks for your reply - At least two reasons I don't want a taildragger - 1. It's been 30 years since I have flown a taildragger and I just don't want to go thru the learning curve. 2. I want to teach my wife how to fly, and it's just so much easier with a tri-gear. I don't plan on really rough river bed landings. Mostly grass fields and sand bars along the Red River (between Oklahoma and Texas). I fully plan on having two sets of tires. Regular tires for trips that use airports (like going to see the grandkids) and then a larger set of tires for trips to Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska - where we might want to explore. Isn't there an old saying about there are two kinds of pilots? - Those that have ground-looped and those that will. I realize that there are places a tri-gear just couldn't land, but since I'm flying for fun and enjoyment, I can just choose other places to land. I've tried to read all the trip stories of Kitfoxes that go to Alaska, and Newfoundland, etc. The only stories I've come across that absolutely require a taildragger are some guys flying Maules and Cubs with what look like 60" tires - landing on rock river bars - they kinda ski across the water on the big tires and then end up on these really rocky river bars that look about 200 feet long. NO THANKS. While I really appreciate their skill - that's not in my plans. Back to my original question. It appears that the CH701 nosegear is just a straight pipe attached to the firewall. The Kitfox nosegear is a cantilever design. I've not heard of any problems with the gear, but just want to get some feedback from people with real experience before commiting to purchasing a plane. Regarding the slats on the CH701 - there seems to be a number of people in Australia that have removed them and put vortex generators in their place. They report the elimination of the drag problem you mentioned, with no degradation of the short field performance. Regards Rodney Wren Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=76066#76066 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:13:58 AM PST US From: "kirk hull" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: prop pitch and reduction I have a stratus 100 HP Subaru conversion with a 2.2 to 1 reduction and a 70 in warpdrive. The max Hp is at 5400 RPM but I am getting 115 mph at 4500 RPM and full power _____ From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JC Propellerdesign Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 1:44 AM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: prop pitch and reduction Kirk, 100 HP at what engine / prop RPM ? and what it top Speed? with 100 HP you will make 115 - 120 MPH SL ?? say 2500 RPM and 117 MPH for an example will be around 16,7 deg @ 75% of the radii. 2400 RPM and 117 will be 17,35 deg @ 75% radii 2300 RPM and 117 will be 18 deg @ 75% radii Jan Carlsson www.jcpropellerdesign.com ----- Original Message ----- From: kirk hull Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 1:16 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: prop pitch and reduction I was just wandering what pitch people were running with what reduction ratio? I was told by the prop shop that with a 100 HP and 2.2 reduction on a 70=94 warpdrive to use around 14 deg. I have been using 17 =BD deg and getting a little noise from the reduction at low power settings 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/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c href "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:23:06 AM PST US From: "kirk hull" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Repairs This I am sure about. Any A&P can do your annual . they do not need an IA to do It. I have done some for friends and I only have an A&P. -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of crazyivan Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 10:34 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Repairs Like all things, especially those that get into regulatory and you butt on the line, check with an expert. My amature reply is that you as the non-builder owner can do all of the maintenance but an A&P must do your annual. I'm not sure if the A&P must be "annual" authorized, but I don't think so. I just changed my prop and the local FSDO knows all about it. -------- Dave Speedster 912 UL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=76030#76030 ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:09:43 AM PST US From: "Paul Seehafer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox 7 or CH701 Rodney, I have flying experience in Kitfoxes and 701's. In my opinion the Kitfox is definitely the better airplane for most peoples needs. Here are my comparisons to support my opinion; (assuming both aircraft equipped with 912s Rotax 100 hp engines) Cruise Performance: Kitfox is 25-35 mph faster in cruise. Takeoff Distance: Kitfox needs a couple hundred feet, whereas the 701 needs only a hundred. Climb Performance: Kitfox climb rate is very similar to 701, but angle is not as steep initially. Landing Distance: Kitfox needs approx 100 ft more than the 701 (701 is extremely high drag). Overall Handling : Kitfox is more agile and sportier. 701 is more Cessna like. Overall Weights: Kitfox weighs approx 100 lbs more than 701, but has 450 lbs more gross! Realistic Useful: Kitfox 750 lbs, 701 only 450 lbs. Fuel Efficiency: Kitfox approx 70% more fuel efficient due to higher cruise on same gph. Fuel Range: Kitfox can go twice as far due to higher cruise and 7 more gallons fuel on board. LSA Compliant: Kitfox and 701 are both Light Sport eligible. Airframe Strength: Kitfox is 4130 chromoly steel (like 200 mph race cars), 701 very light aluminum. Crash Worthiness: Which will collapse easier, a pop can or a pipe? So there's my two cents on it. Ironically, my friends 680 lb 912s powered 701 suffered a nosewheel collapse within it's first ten hours. Buckled the firewall, requiring an extensive replacement and repair. So I don't think that 701 nosegear is quite as stout as it might look. But he does enjoy the airplane again (and he knows just how high the sink rate is on a 701 when you pull the power). I don't mean to be bashing the 701 as I think it is a good airplane overall. But compared to a Kitfox, there just really isn't any comparison. For most people's needs, the Kitfox advantages outweigh most all competition. (Gee, I didn't even get around to mentioning the "real" folding wing of the Kitfox...) But if you are in need of the SUPER STOL characteristics of the 701, you might want to go that route. However, there is a much less expensive way to do the same thing; Just find an older Kitfox you can add a nosegear to, and then power it with any light 100 hp engine. It will have SUPER STOL characteristics at least as good as the 701. Paul Seehafer Central Wisconsin Model IV -1200 912ul ----- Original Message ----- From: "ramrod25" Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 3:02 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox 7 or CH701 > > I have decided I definitaly want a tri-cycle gear stol airplane. My > concern is that the CH701 nosegear appears to be much more structurally > solid than the current Kitfox design. However, I think the Kitfox is a > better looking/performing airplane. > > Is the current Kitfox design strong enough to handle a large tire upfront > or will structural modifications be required. > > Your thoughts, > > Regards, > Rodney Wren > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=75938#75938 > > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:16:28 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Repairs From: "Tom Jones" In plain English: Anyone can work on an experimental aircraft and the only signature ever needed is for the annual condition inspection. This signature must be the builder with a Repairman's Certificate or someone with at least an A&P. In gobuldy gook: I am going to buy a used homebuilt, what work can I perform myself? FAR Part 43 specifically states that the rules of that part do not apply to experimental, amateur-built aircraft. Therefore, any work (not just maintenance) on an experimental aircraft can be performed virtually by anyone regardless of credentials. (This does not apply to the condition inspection). Let common sense be your guide as to what maintenance you conduct yourself. What is a Condition Inspection? A condition inspection is the equivalent of an "annual" for a type certificated aircraft. Although FAR Part 91.409(c)(1) specifically states that experimental aircraft do not require annual inspections, the operating limitations on your homebuilt will include the following (or something similar): No person shall operate this aircraft unless within the preceding 12 calendar months it has had a condition inspection performed in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to part 43, or other FAA-approved programs, and found to be in a condition for safe operation. This inspection will be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records. Condition inspections shall be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records showing the following or a similarly worded statement: "I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on (insert date) in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to part 43 and found to be in a condition for safe operation." The entry will include the aircraft total time in service, and the name, signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held by the person performing the inspection. See the condition inspection checklist for use in conducting annual condition inspections under the Operating section of this web. Since I don't have a Repairman Certificate, who must perform the Condition Inspection? The inspection can be performed by any licensed A&P mechanic, an FAA Approved Repair Station, or by the original builder of the airplane provided the builder has a "Repairman Certificate" for that aircraft from the FAA. Note that unlike an annual for a type certificated aircraft, the A&P mechanic does NOT have to have his/her "Inspection Authorization". Sometimes, if you are lucky, you can include as part of the purchase that the builder will continue to perform the condition inspections. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=76092#76092 ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:25:06 AM PST US From: "JC Propellerdesign" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: prop pitch and reduction Kirk, My guess is you have 85 - 90 hp at 4500, The stratus page didn't say max torque, (should be in that rpm range) If you want all Power (and if engine have) at 5400 my "guess" is that you need 17 - 17,5 deg at 75% (not at tip) and if you have just 90 hp at 5400 you want 16,25 - 16,75 deg If you know where max torque is, it is a good thing to prop it so you are around or above that rpm at climb speed. I think if you reduce the pitch little you will gain speed and climb Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: kirk hull To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 3:13 PM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: prop pitch and reduction I have a stratus 100 HP Subaru conversion with a 2.2 to 1 reduction and a 70 in warpdrive. The max Hp is at 5400 RPM but I am getting 115 mph at 4500 RPM and full power ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JC Propellerdesign Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 1:44 AM To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: prop pitch and reduction Kirk, 100 HP at what engine / prop RPM ? and what it top Speed? with 100 HP you will make 115 - 120 MPH SL ?? say 2500 RPM and 117 MPH for an example will be around 16,7 deg @ 75% of the radii. 2400 RPM and 117 will be 17,35 deg @ 75% radii 2300 RPM and 117 will be 18 deg @ 75% radii Jan Carlsson www.jcpropellerdesign.com ----- Original Message ----- From: kirk hull To: kitfox-list@matronics.com ; Al Brown Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 1:16 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: prop pitch and reduction I was just wandering what pitch people were running with what reduction ratio? I was told by the prop shop that with a 100 HP and 2.2 reduction on a 70" warpdrive to use around 14 deg. I have been using 17 =BD deg and getting a little noise from the reduction at low power settings href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.comhref="http://w ww.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.comhref="http://www.kitlog.com" >www.kitlog.comhref="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.co mhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/ chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matro n www.aeroelectric.comwww.kitlog.comhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitf ox-List ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:35:59 AM PST US From: Michael Gibbs Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Open letter to the list administrator Steve sez: >...But not according to the whim of each individual who disaproves. No whims are involved. The rules are in writing and have not changed significantly in many years. Every few months we have a rash of "please stay on topic" messages followed by an equally sizeable rash of "it's easy to delete the off-topic ones" messages. Both camps have valid points, of course, and we typically end up right where we started. Mike G. N728KF ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 08:25:21 AM PST US From: "kirk hull" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: prop pitch and reduction Thinks I will try 16.5 and see what happens. Max torque is at 3800 RPM _____ From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JC Propellerdesign Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 9:24 AM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: prop pitch and reduction Kirk, My guess is you have 85 - 90 hp at 4500, The stratus page didn't say max torque, (should be in that rpm range) If you want all Power (and if engine have) at 5400 my "guess" is that you need 17 - 17,5 deg at 75% (not at tip) and if you have just 90 hp at 5400 you want 16,25 - 16,75 deg If you know where max torque is, it is a good thing to prop it so you are around or above that rpm at climb speed. I think if you reduce the pitch little you will gain speed and climb Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: kirk hull Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 3:13 PM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: prop pitch and reduction I have a stratus 100 HP Subaru conversion with a 2.2 to 1 reduction and a 70 in warpdrive. The max Hp is at 5400 RPM but I am getting 115 mph at 4500 RPM and full power _____ From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JC Propellerdesign Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 1:44 AM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: prop pitch and reduction Kirk, 100 HP at what engine / prop RPM ? and what it top Speed? with 100 HP you will make 115 - 120 MPH SL ?? say 2500 RPM and 117 MPH for an example will be around 16,7 deg @ 75% of the radii. 2400 RPM and 117 will be 17,35 deg @ 75% radii 2300 RPM and 117 will be 18 deg @ 75% radii Jan Carlsson www.jcpropellerdesign.com ----- Original Message ----- From: kirk hull Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 1:16 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: prop pitch and reduction I was just wandering what pitch people were running with what reduction ratio? I was told by the prop shop that with a 100 HP and 2.2 reduction on a 70=94 warpdrive to use around 14 deg. I have been using 17 =BD deg and getting a little noise from the reduction at low power settings 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/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c href "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron www.aeroelectric.com www.kitlog.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/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c href "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:26:16 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Vixen: Warp Drive Cracked (Continental Engine) From: "FlyboyTR" Ivo Magnum arrived. Looks OK. Wanted to add a couple of pictures showing the Warp Drive and the Magnum. It looks really "large" as compaired to the Warp. Plan to install this week. I'll update after installation and flight testing. Travis :) -------- Travis Rayner Mobile, AL Skystar Vixen N-789DF Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=76115#76115 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/warp_and_ivo_prop_comparison6_128.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/warp_and_ivo_prop_comparison4_822.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/warp_and_ivo_prop_comparison2_103.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/warp_and_ivo_prop_comparison1_933.jpg ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:01:29 AM PST US From: "wingsdown" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Vixen: Warp Drive Cracked (Continental Engine) At first I thought dang big blade, wide cord, longer, and then I saw it is going on a continental. That looks about right to me. Hope it works out. Interested in the real world results. Thanks for the pics. Love that feature. Rick -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of FlyboyTR Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 8:26 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Vixen: Warp Drive Cracked (Continental Engine) Ivo Magnum arrived. Looks OK. Wanted to add a couple of pictures showing the Warp Drive and the Magnum. It looks really "large" as compaired to the Warp. Plan to install this week. I'll update after installation and flight testing. Travis :) -------- Travis Rayner Mobile, AL Skystar Vixen N-789DF Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=76115#76115 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/warp_and_ivo_prop_comparison6_128.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/warp_and_ivo_prop_comparison4_822.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/warp_and_ivo_prop_comparison2_103.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/warp_and_ivo_prop_comparison1_933.jpg ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 09:22:48 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 From: "ramrod25" Av8rps Thanks very much - this is exactly the level of experience I was hoping to find. Appreciate your taking the time and effort to reply. I think your advice is very sound about finding a good used one and converting it to a tri-gear if required. Still, the new model 7 with perhaps the Jabaru 3300 engine is very tempting. Regards Rodney Wren Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=76133#76133 ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 09:31:49 AM PST US From: "John Marzulli" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 You may want to start lurking on the 701 list, or search the archives. There was a huge discussion about the very topic of slat removal. As for the Kitfox, I love it. I really looked hard at the Series 7, but when it came time to buy there were two factors that swung me to the CH701. 1) Zenith was in business, Skystar was not. 2) My "mission profile" was to put amphibs on my plane and go camping in Alaska, a task that I wanted "super" STOL performance for. The tail and control surfaces are finished, and my wings arrive Wednesday, and I can't say I regret my choice. On 11/21/06, ramrod25 wrote: > > > Dave - thanks for your reply - > > At least two reasons I don't want a taildragger - 1. It's been 30 years > since I have flown a taildragger and I just don't want to go thru the > learning curve. 2. I want to teach my wife how to fly, and it's just so > much easier with a tri-gear. > > I don't plan on really rough river bed landings. Mostly grass fields and > sand bars along the Red River (between Oklahoma and Texas). I fully plan on > having two sets of tires. Regular tires for trips that use airports (like > going to see the grandkids) and then a larger set of tires for trips to > Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska - where we might want to explore. > > Isn't there an old saying about there are two kinds of pilots? - Those > that have ground-looped and those that will. > > I realize that there are places a tri-gear just couldn't land, but since > I'm flying for fun and enjoyment, I can just choose other places to > land. I've tried to read all the trip stories of Kitfoxes that go to > Alaska, and Newfoundland, etc. The only stories I've come across that > absolutely require a taildragger are some guys flying Maules and Cubs with > what look like 60" tires - landing on rock river bars - they kinda ski > across the water on the big tires and then end up on these really rocky > river bars that look about 200 feet long. NO THANKS. While I really > appreciate their skill - that's not in my plans. > > Back to my original question. It appears that the CH701 nosegear is just > a straight pipe attached to the firewall. The Kitfox nosegear is a > cantilever design. I've not heard of any problems with the gear, but just > want to get some feedback from people with real experience before commiting > to purchasing a plane. > > Regarding the slats on the CH701 - there seems to be a number of people in > Australia that have removed them and put vortex generators in their > place. They report the elimination of the drag problem you mentioned, with > no degradation of the short field performance. > > Regards > Rodney Wren > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=76066#76066 > > -- John Marzulli http://701Builder.blogspot.com/ "Flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle... it's just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes. ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 11:37:01 AM PST US From: "Paul Seehafer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 Rodney, I'm glad to know I was able to help. Reading your later comment about potentially traveling a bunch in your new airplane, I definitely think you will want the Kitfox. My 701 buddy just reminded me of flying home from Oshkosh at gross weight and seeing a 32 mph groundspeed due to headwinds that were 30-40 mph. I've never yet had cars pass me in my kitfox, so I guess I'm already too spoiled to just accept those kind of speeds traveling cross country. I really like the new Kitfox. The baggage area and useful load is worth going with the new airplane (especially when traveling with heavier things than socks and underwear on those long cross countries). And knowing you can safely haul the extras will make your significant other love the Kitfox too :-) I know you'd have no regrets if going with the new fox. It's an awesome airplane, and sounds like just what you need to satisfy your flying needs. But the best part is the fun you will have. You will never grow tired of flying the Kitfox. It is just so much fun to fly! The big Jabiru would make for an interesting comparison to the 100 hp Rotax 912s. I know of one kitplane mfr that has one of each of these engines in the same model airplane, and have flown them together cross country numerous times. The Jabiru has to carry an extra fuel tank to make the same range the Rotax does. But that also was an early 3300, and I heard the company has made some changes to the carb and the heads (for overheating issues). It would be interesting to hear from other Kitfoxers running the 3300 Jabiru. We have a lot of stats on the 912's, and I personally am sold on it after owning one in my Model IV and flying many others in other aircraft. BUT, those jabirus sure look good, sound great, and have less parts to hook up... Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "ramrod25" Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 11:22 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 > > Av8rps > > Thanks very much - this is exactly the level of experience I was hoping to > find. Appreciate your taking the time and effort to reply. > > I think your advice is very sound about finding a good used one and > converting it to a tri-gear if required. > > Still, the new model 7 with perhaps the Jabaru 3300 engine is very > tempting. > > Regards > Rodney Wren > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=76133#76133 > > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 11:37:09 AM PST US From: "Andrew Matthaey" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: OT Got the call... Thanks Michel and Kurt - I appreciate all the help I can get ;-) and Kurt - that's a great story - It's good to hear of one heavy-iron driver still keeping up his stick and rudder skills! I certainly intend to do the same - I noticed a huge improvement in my flying GA after flying the 'Fox around...I wouldn't trade it for the world!! Thanks again, Andrew KF3 CFI/CFII/MEI >From: kurt schrader >To: kitfox-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: OT Got the call... >Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 21:39:50 -0800 (PST) > > > >Way to go Andrew! > >Making it a little more on topic.... > >Don't forget to keep flying Fox's. I've got 1/2 a >gazillian hours in heavy metal, but my V-1 cuts >improved greatly as soon as I started tailwheel Fox >flying. They make keeping sharp fun. > >Just the other week we 2 (alone) were flying from >Brazil into the mountain country of Bogata Columbia in >a 767 when both FMC computers failed over the jungle. >Autopilot, autothrottles and navigation systems just >about gone. We were Fox flying at FL350. Add to it, >the controllers were in a tizzy because they had the >worst aviation accident in brazil history recently and >some controllers may go to jail. Those on duty were >rerouting us all over, and neither of us understand >Portugese. It was a very busy 6 hours. > >yup, map and compass in a 767 over the Amazon.... > >Kurt S. S-5 (and proud of it) > >--- Andrew Matthaey >wrote: > > > Heya List... > > > > Well I've only been flight instructing for about 7 > > weeks here in Oregon, and > > I actually got the call a few days ago - can't > > believe how quick that was!! > > > > I've got an interview next tuesday 9am (CST) for a > > new-hire class first week > > of December to fly the ERJ-145...Wish me luck > > everybody! I've been working > > my tail off for the last four years for this!! > > > > Andrew > > KF3 > > CFI/CFII/MEI > > > > do not archive > > >$200,000 mortgage for $660/ mo >30/15 yr fixed, reduce debt >http://yahoo.ratemarketplace.com > > _________________________________________________________________ Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger. ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 11:58:41 AM PST US From: "debrun26@juno.com" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: OT Got the call... ALL RIGHT ANDREW!!!! I knew you were a better pilot than the meager wa ge you were getting for instructing. Good luck from Deb and me. I stil l have my searies V stuck in Snohomish, WA due to weather. Would love t o have you build up a few more hours ferriing my plane up to AK all expe nses paid and some cash in your pocket besides. Layne ________________________________________________________________________ ALL RIGHT ANDREW!!!!   I knew you were a better pilot th an the meager wage you were getting for instructing.  Good luck fro m Deb and me.  I still have my searies V stuck in Snohomish, WA due to weather.  Would love to have you build up a few more hours ferriing my plane up to AK all expenses paid and some cash in your pocket besides.   Layne 

______________________ __________________________________________________
Visit http://www.juno.com/value to sign up today!
________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 12:27:23 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 From: "ramrod25" Paul Your first paragraph really made me laugh! When I first got my pilot's license I made a trip from Lubbock to Tucson, Az. It was in an old Cessna 172 with the 145 hp Continental engine - we had such a bad headwind that the cars on the freeway were passing us. I forgot about that until you mentioned the experience your friend had. I guess there are just some days like that. But - it's better to be flying than driving. Well I appreciate all the help - I really wanted a Kitfox, but needed to address the concerns about the nosegear. And unless I buy one all ready put together, the next big decision will have to be the engine. Everyone I have talked to really likes the Rotax engines. I think there are three engines I might be interested in: 1. The 100 hp Rotax 912S 2. The Jabaru 3300 and 3. the Ram Subaru that puts out 140 HP. The 912S seems to be a very proven engine with a good historical base behind it. The Jabaru and the Ram Subaru are less well proven - but by the time I get around to buying an engine - that may have changed. I think that right now the Rotax would be the engine of choice. Thanks again for your advice Regards Rodney Wren Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=76160#76160 ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 12:58:21 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 On Nov 21, 2006, at 9:26 PM, ramrod25 wrote: > The Jabaru and the Ram Subaru are less well proven - but by the time I > get around to buying an engine - that may have changed. Very wise, Rodney. I have a Jabiru 2200 and I am very pleased with it but it is serial # 1665, a later and improved model. The 3300 is still in its infancy. Cheers, Michel ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 01:15:55 PM PST US From: "Cudnohufsky's" <7suds@Chartermi.net> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Glare Shield/Dash If you want it out of fiberglass or carbon fiber you can make a mold from a thin piece of sheet metal and then layup the glass o nthe bottom side of the tin, use a release agent. M2CW ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Allen" Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 12:24 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Glare Shield/Dash > > > Any good ideas out there on making a glare shield for > a IV? > > Black carpet. > > > ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 02:21:08 PM PST US From: Sjklerks@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox 7 or CH701 One thing to consider about the choice between a Kitfox and the 701 is, If you ever have an engine failure, the 701 will fall to the ground like a rock and the Kitfox will at least give you an excellent glide ratio? ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 02:21:08 PM PST US From: "dave" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 Rodney, Well hopefully you will test fly any model that you are looking at and take a GPS with you to see what speeds they are actually getting. I did say that my friend has a 701 with 912 UL in it and he says 85 mph ........ I would verify that with a flight your self. I know my 582 Kitfox IV will fly at 88 to 90 mph at 1500 asl -- and I would guess well over 100 at 7500 or better... The taildragger talk it a old one and to each their own. Nose gear 701 or Kitfox will certainly fit the bill as you described, but also they will break . 701 nose gears have been bent up from hard landings. Hope that helps you ,but the key to your right choice is to fly both models you are looking at. I am in Ontario Canada and would be more than happy to take you up. Where are you located ? Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "ramrod25" Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 8:54 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 > > Dave - thanks for your reply - > > At least two reasons I don't want a taildragger - 1. It's been 30 years > since I have flown a taildragger and I just don't want to go thru the > learning curve. 2. I want to teach my wife how to fly, and it's just so > much easier with a tri-gear. > > I don't plan on really rough river bed landings. Mostly grass fields and > sand bars along the Red River (between Oklahoma and Texas). I fully plan > on having two sets of tires. Regular tires for trips that use airports > (like going to see the grandkids) and then a larger set of tires for trips > to Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska - where we might want to explore. > > Isn't there an old saying about there are two kinds of pilots? - Those > that have ground-looped and those that will. > > I realize that there are places a tri-gear just couldn't land, but since > I'm flying for fun and enjoyment, I can just choose other places to land. > I've tried to read all the trip stories of Kitfoxes that go to Alaska, and > Newfoundland, etc. The only stories I've come across that absolutely > require a taildragger are some guys flying Maules and Cubs with what look > like 60" tires - landing on rock river bars - they kinda ski across the > water on the big tires and then end up on these really rocky river bars > that look about 200 feet long. NO THANKS. While I really appreciate > their skill - that's not in my plans. > > Back to my original question. It appears that the CH701 nosegear is just > a straight pipe attached to the firewall. The Kitfox nosegear is a > cantilever design. I've not heard of any problems with the gear, but just > want to get some feedback from people with real experience before > commiting to purchasing a plane. > > Regarding the slats on the CH701 - there seems to be a number of people in > Australia that have removed them and put vortex generators in their place. > They report the elimination of the drag problem you mentioned, with no > degradation of the short field performance. > > Regards > Rodney Wren > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=76066#76066 > > > ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 03:08:22 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 Hi Paul, I would be a little more concerned with a heavy engine on a nose gear plane. More enertia and weight for the nose gear to handle. I have the NSI Soob, but on a tail dragger. For your application, the Rotax and Jabaru sound better. I think the 3300 will eventually be the better choice, but it depends upon when you have to buy it. As you say, Rotax for now and the 3300 better sometime later. Kurt S. S-5/NSI Soob --- ramrod25 wrote: .......... > Everyone I have talked to really likes the Rotax > engines. I think there are three engines I might be > interested in: 1. The 100 hp Rotax 912S 2. The > Jabaru 3300 and 3. the Ram Subaru that puts out 140 > HP. > > The 912S seems to be a very proven engine with a > good historical base behind it. The Jabaru and the > Ram Subaru are less well proven - but by the time I > get around to buying an engine - that may have > changed. I think that right now the Rotax would > be the engine of choice. > > Thanks again for your advice > Regards > Rodney Wren ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 04:03:02 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Tail Drager poem From: "Tom Jones" TAILDRAGGER Taildragger, I hate your guts, I have the license , ratings and such But to make you go straight is driving me nuts. With hours of teaching and the controls in my clutch It takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much. You see, I learned to fly in a tricycle gear With one up front and two in the rear. She was sleek and clean and easy to steer But this miserable thing with tires and struts Takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much. It demands your attention on the take-off roll Or it'll head towards Jones's as you pour on the coal. Gotta hang loose, don't over control. This wicked little plane is just too much With a lot of zigzagging and words obscene I think I've mastered this slippery machine. It's not that bad if you have the touch Just a little rudder, easy, that's too much. I relax for a second and from the corner of my eye, I suddenly realize with a gasp and a cry That's my own tail that's going by. You ground looping wreck; I hate your guts, Give a little rudder, Great Scott THAT'S TOO MUCH! Author unknown Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=76195#76195 ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 04:22:32 PM PST US From: "Rex Shaw" Subject: Kitfox-List: Tri gear or Tail dragger ? On 11/20/06, ramrod25 wrote: > > > I have decided I definitaly want a tri-cycle gear stol airplane. My > concern is that the CH701 nosegear appears to be much more structurally > solid than the current Kitfox design. However, I think the Kitfox is a > better looking/performing airplane. > > Is the current Kitfox design strong enough to handle a large tire upfront > or will structural modifications be required. > > Your thoughts, > > Regards, > Rodney Wren Hi ! Rodney, you say you definitely want nose gear but you don't say why unless I missed it somewhere else. When I bought my Kitfox MKIV tail dragger I had trained in a Jabiru tri-cycle and most were telling me I should think the decision carefully. I guess some were stronger about it too. In fact I think no one fully supported my decision to go tail dragger. They all said it was much harder ! I just wonder if this is something like what is making up your mind to go nose gear. If so now in hind sight I would say "Don't let it worry you." Sure one can handle a tri-cycle just fine and jump into a tail dragger and get in all sorts of tangles BUT with the RIGHT help it's really not that hard to sort the problem. Unfortunately you will always get different opinions on what exactly to do to fly a tail dragger and that only adds to the confusion. My experience since learning tail dragger is that the most common problem others are having is landing due to trying to do wheelers. Yes I know that's the only way some do it but I have found when they try 3 pointing instead with a bit of advice that all of a sudden they get it down just fine and their confidence increases dramatically. If you study your Basic Aircraft Knowledge you will see there is a lot of forces acting on a tail dragger more than tri-cycle. In the learning stage these can cause wild swings etc both on landing and take-off. However after you master it you probably won't even notice these. It's like taking off in a trike. The Jabiru pulled to the left but after a while I didn't even notice it. I was just correcting automatically. You will soon be doing the same in a dragger. I had a very good CFI friend help me and basically this is how we handled it. On take-off I initially held the tail down with full back stick to about 20 knots. This gives steering control. I then would go to neutral stick as I then had enough airflow over the the tail and due to the angle of attack with the tail down we would gently lift off just above stall. This meant we avoided most of the forces pulling the plane off line and so I quickly gained confidence. However as we lifted off just above stall we had to be very carefull and for this reason we soon progressed to a different aproach but I had gained confidence ! Next I learnt to hold the tail down as before to about 20 knots but then instead of neutral stick go to slightly forward stick and lift the tail to achieve zero angle of attack. This way there is far less drag from the wings while I pickup speed to about 40 knots or so and then I gently pull back and up we go. Having gained confidence by the first method you can now handle the pulling forces fairly easilly. Now landings ! Right many will argue here re wheelers versus 3 pointers but I'm going to stick my neck out here for 3 pointers because I am hopeless at wheelers anyway and in the cases where others have had trouble landing it's been because they are trying to do wheelers. OK I know when you can do them there is nothing to it but in the meantime I'm dead certain it's easier to 3 point my Kitfox at least. Really in my plane and other Kitfox's I know off all there is to it is "Get the stick hard back into the seat cushion without flaring high and before touch down. It won't bounce ! Not that it really is bouncing anyway, it's flying again due to angle of attack and being above stall. Now there is another point. You need to get good at steering with your feet. Just practice. In any case trying to steer a castoring nose wheel with brakes is surely harder at any sort of speed. So what I'm saying is don't pass the dragger because it appears to be a hard skill to master. It's not ! Also if you want stol that suggests you want to land in the rough somtimes. Well I'd far sooner be in a dragger thanks very much. You ask if structural mods are needed for a large tyre up front. Well I would imagine so but don't really know. however I do know I'd be far happier in the rough not pushing a nose wheel along in front. One can only hold it up for so long. Yes I agree with you a Kitfox is a special little plane compared to others. Even if I was in a position to change planes I would not stray far if at all from what I've got. I would suggest to you that if you go tail dragger Kitfox you really will be very glad on both the Kitfox and dragger decisions after only a short learning curve and then you will be having a lot of fun like the rest of us. Go for it and enjoy. That's what it is all about ! Rex. ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 04:52:19 PM PST US From: "wingsdown" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Tri gear or Tail dragger ? SS did offer a larger front tire. It was a late upgrade that required the fork to be changed out. There was also an update to the front strut. Might check with the new owners. Rick -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rex Shaw Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 10:51 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Tri gear or Tail dragger ? On 11/20/06, ramrod25 < r_wren@wfec.com> wrote: > > > I have decided I definitaly want a tri-cycle gear stol airplane. My > concern is that the CH701 nosegear appears to be much more structurally > solid than the current Kitfox design. However, I think the Kitfox is a > better looking/performing airplane. > > Is the current Kitfox design strong enough to handle a large tire upfront > or will structural modifications be required. > > Your thoughts, > > Regards, > Rodney Wren Hi ! Rodney, you say you definitely want nose gear but you don't say why unless I missed it somewhere else. When I bought my Kitfox MKIV tail dragger I had trained in a Jabiru tri-cycle and most were telling me I should think the decision carefully. I guess some were stronger about it too. In fact I think no one fully supported my decision to go tail dragger. They all said it was much harder ! I just wonder if this is something like what is making up your mind to go nose gear. If so now in hind sight I would say "Don't let it worry you." Sure one can handle a tri-cycle just fine and jump into a tail dragger and get in all sorts of tangles BUT with the RIGHT help it's really not that hard to sort the problem. Unfortunately you will always get different opinions on what exactly to do to fly a tail dragger and that only adds to the confusion. My experience since learning tail dragger is that the most common problem others are having is landing due to trying to do wheelers. Yes I know that's the only way some do it but I have found when they try 3 pointing instead with a bit of advice that all of a sudden they get it down just fine and their confidence increases dramatically. If you study your Basic Aircraft Knowledge you will see there is a lot of forces acting on a tail dragger more than tri-cycle. In the learning stage these can cause wild swings etc both on landing and take-off. However after you master it you probably won't even notice these. It's like taking off in a trike. The Jabiru pulled to the left but after a while I didn't even notice it. I was just correcting automatically. You will soon be doing the same in a dragger. I had a very good CFI friend help me and basically this is how we handled it. On take-off I initially held the tail down with full back stick to about 20 knots. This gives steering control. I then would go to neutral stick as I then had enough airflow over the the tail and due to the angle of attack with the tail down we would gently lift off just above stall. This meant we avoided most of the forces pulling the plane off line and so I quickly gained confidence. However as we lifted off just above stall we had to be very carefull and for this reason we soon progressed to a different aproach but I had gained confidence ! Next I learnt to hold the tail down as before to about 20 knots but then instead of neutral stick go to slightly forward stick and lift the tail to achieve zero angle of attack. This way there is far less drag from the wings while I pickup speed to about 40 knots or so and then I gently pull back and up we go. Having gained confidence by the first method you can now handle the pulling forces fairly easilly. Now landings ! Right many will argue here re wheelers versus 3 pointers but I'm going to stick my neck out here for 3 pointers because I am hopeless at wheelers anyway and in the cases where others have had trouble landing it's been because they are trying to do wheelers. OK I know when you can do them there is nothing to it but in the meantime I'm dead certain it's easier to 3 point my Kitfox at least. Really in my plane and other Kitfox's I know off all there is to it is "Get the stick hard back into the seat cushion without flaring high and before touch down. It won't bounce ! Not that it really is bouncing anyway, it's flying again due to angle of attack and being above stall. Now there is another point. You need to get good at steering with your feet. Just practice. In any case trying to steer a castoring nose wheel with brakes is surely harder at any sort of speed. So what I'm saying is don't pass the dragger because it appears to be a hard skill to master. It's not ! Also if you want stol that suggests you want to land in the rough somtimes. Well I'd far sooner be in a dragger thanks very much. You ask if structural mods are needed for a large tyre up front. Well I would imagine so but don't really know. however I do know I'd be far happier in the rough not pushing a nose wheel along in front. One can only hold it up for so long. Yes I agree with you a Kitfox is a special little plane compared to others. Even if I was in a position to change planes I would not stray far if at all from what I've got. I would suggest to you that if you go tail dragger Kitfox you really will be very glad on both the Kitfox and dragger decisions after only a short learning curve and then you will be having a lot of fun like the rest of us. Go for it and enjoy. That's what it is all about ! Rex. ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 04:52:21 PM PST US From: "john perry" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 Rodney I am in Lawton OKlahoma just north of the RED RIVER . I have been thinking of running the river but wondered if I would get in trouble for landing on the sand bars or not ?. What does the FAA say about this and will we get spanked for it . if not Im in this weekend and flying the river . What do you guys out there think . If you are near me give a holler and well have to meet up and let you fly the bird. Take care every one have a great safe week and a very HAPPY THANKSGIVING<<<<<< thankful for the KITFOX Fly safe fly low fly slow fly fun fly KITFOX John Perry Kitfox 2 N718PD 580-695-8778 ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 04:55:11 PM PST US From: "dave" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tri gear or Tail dragger ? Rex , very well put . Now what critique can you give me here? http://www.cfisher.com/kitfox/ One wheelers, two wheelers or 3 pointers......... why are do taildragers get a bad rap ? Same reason as 2 strokes do-- the pilot that is operating it perhaps ? Yes there are some that are not co-ordinated but you only have to be able to use rudders and stick as you do in any plane on take off or landing. Always know where you wind it and your nose pointed and always being steered. Our daily temps near freezing now and performance is getting better. 100 foot take offs the normal ? Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: Rex Shaw To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 1:51 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Tri gear or Tail dragger ? On 11/20/06, ramrod25 wrote: > > > I have decided I definitaly want a tri-cycle gear stol airplane. My > concern is that the CH701 nosegear appears to be much more structurally > solid than the current Kitfox design. However, I think the Kitfox is a > better looking/performing airplane. > > Is the current Kitfox design strong enough to handle a large tire upfront > or will structural modifications be required. > > Your thoughts, > > Regards, > Rodney Wren Hi ! Rodney, you say you definitely want nose gear but you don't say why unless I missed it somewhere else. When I bought my Kitfox MKIV tail dragger I had trained in a Jabiru tri-cycle and most were telling me I should think the decision carefully. I guess some were stronger about it too. In fact I think no one fully supported my decision to go tail dragger. They all said it was much harder ! I just wonder if this is something like what is making up your mind to go nose gear. If so now in hind sight I would say "Don't let it worry you." Sure one can handle a tri-cycle just fine and jump into a tail dragger and get in all sorts of tangles BUT with the RIGHT help it's really not that hard to sort the problem. Unfortunately you will always get different opinions on what exactly to do to fly a tail dragger and that only adds to the confusion. My experience since learning tail dragger is that the most common problem others are having is landing due to trying to do wheelers. Yes I know that's the only way some do it but I have found when they try 3 pointing instead with a bit of advice that all of a sudden they get it down just fine and their confidence increases dramatically. If you study your Basic Aircraft Knowledge you will see there is a lot of forces acting on a tail dragger more than tri-cycle. In the learning stage these can cause wild swings etc both on landing and take-off. However after you master it you probably won't even notice these. It's like taking off in a trike. The Jabiru pulled to the left but after a while I didn't even notice it. I was just correcting automatically. You will soon be doing the same in a dragger. I had a very good CFI friend help me and basically this is how we handled it. On take-off I initially held the tail down with full back stick to about 20 knots. This gives steering control. I then would go to neutral stick as I then had enough airflow over the the tail and due to the angle of attack with the tail down we would gently lift off just above stall. This meant we avoided most of the forces pulling the plane off line and so I quickly gained confidence. However as we lifted off just above stall we had to be very carefull and for this reason we soon progressed to a different aproach but I had gained confidence ! Next I learnt to hold the tail down as before to about 20 knots but then instead of neutral stick go to slightly forward stick and lift the tail to achieve zero angle of attack. This way there is far less drag from the wings while I pickup speed to about 40 knots or so and then I gently pull back and up we go. Having gained confidence by the first method you can now handle the pulling forces fairly easilly. Now landings ! Right many will argue here re wheelers versus 3 pointers but I'm going to stick my neck out here for 3 pointers because I am hopeless at wheelers anyway and in the cases where others have had trouble landing it's been because they are trying to do wheelers. OK I know when you can do them there is nothing to it but in the meantime I'm dead certain it's easier to 3 point my Kitfox at least. Really in my plane and other Kitfox's I know off all there is to it is "Get the stick hard back into the seat cushion without flaring high and before touch down. It won't bounce ! Not that it really is bouncing anyway, it's flying again due to angle of attack and being above stall. Now there is another point. You need to get good at steering with your feet. Just practice. In any case trying to steer a castoring nose wheel with brakes is surely harder at any sort of speed. So what I'm saying is don't pass the dragger because it appears to be a hard skill to master. It's not ! Also if you want stol that suggests you want to land in the rough somtimes. Well I'd far sooner be in a dragger thanks very much. You ask if structural mods are needed for a large tyre up front. Well I would imagine so but don't really know. however I do know I'd be far happier in the rough not pushing a nose wheel along in front. One can only hold it up for so long. Yes I agree with you a Kitfox is a special little plane compared to others. Even if I was in a position to change planes I would not stray far if at all from what I've got. I would suggest to you that if you go tail dragger Kitfox you really will be very glad on both the Kitfox and dragger decisions after only a short learning curve and then you will be having a lot of fun like the rest of us. Go for it and enjoy. That's what it is all about ! Rex. ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 04:56:04 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Need Door Hold upper for Fox1V From: ROBERT E SIMON Hi John. My Fox 1V uses a spring system to hold the door open. The part that attaches to the wing has broken the riveted strap. I do not know if you can replace this, but you are my only provider. Let me know of any options? The three leaf spring is doing fine, and I tested it strength last week . Not on purpose? I may soon be in the need of a new muffler. What do you have to offer? Over,and out. Grasstripper. ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 05:23:53 PM PST US From: "Roger McConnell" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 Rodney, Where at along the Red River do you fly? I'm in Duncan just to the north, right about in the middle. Roger Mac S7/912uls DO NOT ARCHIVE -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ramrod25 Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 11:22 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701 Av8rps Thanks very much - this is exactly the level of experience I was hoping to find. Appreciate your taking the time and effort to reply. I think your advice is very sound about finding a good used one and converting it to a tri-gear if required. Still, the new model 7 with perhaps the Jabaru 3300 engine is very tempting. Regards Rodney Wren Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=76133#76133 ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 06:05:52 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tri gear or Tail dragger ? From: "Colin Durey" Hi guys, I can't resist this one, especially after Rex's well put words. Going back (again) to my gliding days, ONE wheel and a belly hook add up to some pretty strange (and powerfull) forces on take-off, with landings also an experience. Ground loops are always a potential, but good instruction, practice, and attention to flying skills, add up to really enjoyable flying. I've never ground-looped in either glider or Skyfox (variant of the Kitfox), but have felt a couple developing and corrected. Rodney, I wouldn't walk away from a taildragger just because it takes a bit more time and attention to master its peculiarities. The Kitfox is a great plane. Regards Colin Durey Sydney - Australia dave said: > Rex , very well put . > > Now what critique can you give me here? http://www.cfisher.com/kitfox/ > > One wheelers, two wheelers or 3 pointers......... why are do taildragers > get a bad rap ? > Same reason as 2 strokes do-- the pilot that is operating it perhaps ? > > Yes there are some that are not co-ordinated but you only have to be able > to use rudders and stick as you do in any plane on take off or landing. > Always know where you wind it and your nose pointed and always being > steered. > > Our daily temps near freezing now and performance is getting better. 100 > foot take offs the normal ? > > > Dave > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Rex Shaw > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 1:51 PM > Subject: Kitfox-List: Tri gear or Tail dragger ? > > > On 11/20/06, ramrod25 wrote: > > > > > > I have decided I definitaly want a tri-cycle gear stol airplane. My > > concern is that the CH701 nosegear appears to be much more > structurally > > solid than the current Kitfox design. However, I think the Kitfox is > a > > better looking/performing airplane. > > > > Is the current Kitfox design strong enough to handle a large tire > upfront > > or will structural modifications be required. > > > > Your thoughts, > > > > Regards, > > Rodney Wren > > Hi ! Rodney, > you say you definitely want nose gear but you > don't say why unless I missed it somewhere else. > When I bought my Kitfox MKIV tail dragger I had > trained in a Jabiru tri-cycle and most were > telling me I should think the decision carefully. > I guess some were stronger about it too. In fact I > think no one fully supported my decision to go > tail dragger. They all said it was much harder ! > I just wonder if this is something like what is making up your mind to > go nose gear. If so now in hind sight I would say "Don't let it worry > you." Sure one can handle a tri-cycle just fine and jump into a tail > dragger and get in all sorts of tangles BUT with the RIGHT help it's > really not that hard to sort the problem. Unfortunately you will > always get different opinions on what exactly to do to fly a tail > dragger and that only adds to the confusion. My experience since > learning tail dragger is that the most common problem others are > having is landing due to trying to do wheelers. Yes I know that's the > only way some do it but I have found when they try 3 pointing instead > with a bit of advice that all of a sudden they get it down just fine > and their confidence increases dramatically. > If you study your Basic Aircraft Knowledge you will see there is a lot > of forces acting on a tail dragger more than tri-cycle. In the > learning stage these can cause wild swings etc both on landing and > take-off. However after you master it you probably won't even notice > these. It's like taking off in a trike. The Jabiru pulled to the left > but after a while I didn't even notice it. I was just correcting > automatically. You will soon be doing the same in a dragger. > I had a very good CFI friend help me and basically this is how we > handled it. On take-off I initially held the tail down with full back > stick to about 20 knots. This gives steering control. I then would go > to neutral stick as I then had enough airflow over the the tail and > due to the angle of attack with the tail down we would gently lift off > just above stall. This meant we avoided most of the forces pulling the > plane off line and so I quickly gained confidence. However as we > lifted off just above stall we had to be very carefull and for this > reason we soon progressed to a different aproach but I had gained > confidence ! > Next I learnt to hold the tail down as before to about 20 knots but > then instead of neutral stick go to slightly forward stick and lift > the tail to achieve zero angle of attack. This way there is far less > drag from the wings while I pickup speed to about 40 knots or so and > then I gently pull back and up we go. Having gained confidence by the > first method you can now handle the pulling forces fairly easilly. > Now landings ! Right many will argue here re wheelers versus 3 > pointers but I'm going to stick my neck out here for 3 pointers > because I am hopeless at wheelers anyway and in the cases where > others have had trouble landing it's been because they are trying to > do wheelers. OK I know when you can do them there is nothing to it > but in the meantime I'm dead certain it's easier to 3 point my > Kitfox at least. Really in my plane and other Kitfox's I know off > all there is to it is "Get the stick hard back into the seat cushion > without flaring high and before touch down. It won't bounce ! Not > that it really is bouncing anyway, it's flying again due to angle of > attack and being above stall. > Now there is another point. You need to get good at steering with your > feet. Just practice. In any case trying to steer a castoring nose > wheel with brakes is surely harder at any sort of speed. > So what I'm saying is don't pass the dragger because it appears to be > a hard skill to master. It's not ! Also if you want stol that suggests > you want to land in the rough somtimes. Well I'd far sooner be in a > dragger thanks very much. You ask if structural mods are needed for a > large tyre up front. Well I would imagine so but don't really know. > however I do know I'd be far happier in the rough not pushing a nose > wheel along in front. One can only hold it up for so long. > Yes I agree with you a Kitfox is a special little plane compared to > others. Even if I was in a position to change planes I would not stray > far if at all from what I've got. I would suggest to you that if you > go tail dragger Kitfox you really will be very glad on both the Kitfox > and dragger decisions after only a short learning curve and then you > will be having a lot of fun like the rest of us. Go for it and enjoy. > That's what it is all about ! > Rex. > > ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 06:14:57 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tri gear or Tail dragger ? From: Lynn Matteson I echo exactly what Rex has said. I learned to fly....or should I say I spent about 40 hours being trained to have lazy feet, in a 172, and was doing ok, then I finished building my Kitfox, had it test flown for me, then began receiving instruction in it. It is a taildragger, Model IV. I had not soloed the 172 yet, due to my hours being spread out over too many months. After a few more hours of training in my Kitfox, I was ok'd for solo, and got that first flight alone in the cockpit out of the way. Since then, I have received my Sport Pilot ticket, and now have over 125 solo hours, including over 435 landings, all 3-pointers except for a couple of wheelers, which were inadvertent, and all since June of this year. I got my Sport Pilot ticket 5 days before I turned 70 years of age...if this old fart can do it, so can you! Lynn p.s. With a taildragger, you don't have to worry which of the nose gears are the strongest. On Wednesday, November 22, 2006, at 01:51 PM, Rex Shaw wrote: > On 11/20/06, ramrod25 wrote: > > > > > > I have decided I definitaly want a tri-cycle gear stol airplane. My > > concern is that the CH701 nosegear appears to be much more > structurally > > solid than the current Kitfox design. However, I think the Kitfox > is a > > better looking/performing airplane. > > > > Is the current Kitfox design strong enough to handle a large tire > upfront > > or will structural modifications be required. > > > > Your thoughts, > > > > Regards, > > Rodney Wren ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 07:35:11 PM PST US From: "Jimmie Blackwell" Subject: Kitfox-List: Need Muffler Source for Model IV 912 UL Would appreciate anyone on the list letting me know if you have a source for a Model IV 912UL muffler. ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 09:16:56 PM PST US From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Need Muffler Source for Model IV 912 UL You might want to look at what Just Aircraft supplies for the Highlander. Its one muffler for each side. You end up with dual pipes and a nice compact package. Randy . _____ From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jimmie Blackwell Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 8:33 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Need Muffler Source for Model IV 912 UL Would appreciate anyone on the list letting me know if you have a source for a Model IV 912UL muffler. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message kitfox-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.