Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:40 AM - Who is "Matt Dralle" & What Are "The Lists"? [Please Read] (Matt Dralle)
1. 03:10 AM - flaperon weights (Eric)
2. 03:33 AM - Re: Re: Ever had this happen?...OFF TOPIC (Lynn Matteson)
3. 05:12 AM - Cowling (Bob Unternaehrer)
4. 06:53 AM - Re: Model II MTOW (Marco Menezes)
5. 09:02 AM - Re: The Taxman cometh (Michael Gibbs)
6. 09:02 AM - Re: Conventional Vs Tail and other training (Michael Gibbs)
7. 09:07 AM - The Taxman cometh (Joe & Jan Connell)
8. 09:20 AM - Re: Model II MTOW (Noel Loveys)
9. 10:32 AM - Re: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes (dave)
10. 11:53 AM - Conventional Vs Tail and other training (Fox5flyer)
11. 11:57 AM - Changing Model II MTOW (Fox5flyer)
12. 12:07 PM - Re: Re: Conventional Vs Tail and other training (Noel Loveys)
13. 12:18 PM - Re: Re: The Taxman cometh (Noel Loveys)
14. 12:25 PM - Re: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes (Noel Loveys)
15. 03:58 PM - Re: Re: The Taxman cometh (Dan Billingsley)
16. 04:09 PM - Directional stabilitty (Rex Shaw)
17. 05:23 PM - Re: Directional stabilitty (Noel Loveys)
18. 05:36 PM - Model II MTOW (Dee Young)
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: | Who is "Matt Dralle" & What Are "The Lists"? [Please Read] |
Dear Listers,
Who is Matt Dralle and what exactly are these Lists? Well, I've been working in
the information technology industry for over 20 years primarily in computer
networking design and implementation. I have also done extensive work in web
development and CGI design during this period.
I started the Matronics Email Lists back in 1990 with about 30 fellow RV builders
from around the world. Since that time, I have added 63 other kinds of aircraft
related Lists to the line up and numerous other List related services such
as the Forums, Wiki, Archives and Search Engine just to name a few.
For flexibility and reliability, I have chosen to run all of my own servers here
locally. Other List-related systems include a 1 Gigabit, fully switched network
infrastructure, a commercial-grade Netscreen firewall, a Barracuda spam filter,
a local T1 Internet router, and a commercial-grade business T1 Internet
connection with full static addressing.
The computer servers found here include a brand new, quad-processor Xeon Linux
server for List web services, a dual-processor Xeon Linux system dedicated to
the email processing List functions, and another P4 Linux system serving as a
remote storage disk farm for the archives, databases, and for an on-line hard
drive-based backup system with 3.2 Terra Bytes of storage, soon to be upgraded
to over 6 Terra Bytes! This entire system is protected by three large, commercial-grade
uninterrupted power supply (UPS) systems that assure the Lists are
available even during a local power outage! Speaking of power, imagine how much
electricity it takes to run all of these systems. One month this Summer,
I had a staggering $1368 bill for electricity alone!
I recently upgraded all of the computer racking infrastructure including new power
feeds and dedicated air conditioning for the room that serves as the Computer
Center for the Matronics Email Lists. This year I added another rack to house
the new MONSTER quad-processor web system that didn't quite fit into the
first rack! Here's a composite photo of the List Computer Center before the addition
of the second rack:
http://www.matronics.com/MattDralle-ListComputerCenter.jpg
As you can see, I take running these Lists very seriously and I am dedicated to
providing an always-on, 24x7x365 experience for each and every Lister.
But building and running this system isn't cheap. As I've stated before, I don't
support any of these systems with commercial advertising on the Lists. It
is supported 100% through List member Contributions! That means you... and you...
and YOU!
To that end, I hold a List Fund Raiser each November and ask that members make
a small Contribution to support the continued operation and upgrade of this ever-expanding
system. Its solely YOUR Contributions that keeps it running!
Please make a Contribution today to support these Lists!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore CA 94551-0347
USA
(Please include your email address on the check!)
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
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: | flaperon weights |
There is a set of flaperon weights on eBay right now.
Eric
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: Ever had this happen?...OFF TOPIC |
How about the older rope crankshaft seals? They were grease and
graphite-impregnated seals that had to be cut to size. You would lay
one half in the proper groove, lay the crank in place over it, and
slice the excess seal at the surface of the main bearing cap joint with
a razor blade. Then do the same with the main bearing cap itself,
leaving a "little" excess. Then when tightening everything down, the
seal would be pressed onto the crank. If not tight enough the crank
seal would leak...if too tight the crank would not turn. I had a
flathead Ford that I had to push to start the first time, and the
wheels skidded until that seal gave up its grip and let the crank turn.
Yeah, today's mechanics have it made with the modern seals.
Lynn
do not archive
On Monday, November 27, 2006, at 07:07 PM, jimcarriere wrote:
> <jimcarriere@yahoo.com>
>
> [quote="Float Flyr"]
> When I saw the first "Chamois" filter I was surprised to find out that
> what
> they were actually using was a felt. One of the properties of felt is
> it
> stops the flow of water while passing gasoline.
>
> [quote] --[/quote]
>
> Noel, I had an old car that used felt for the crankshaft seal. This
> was old-fashioned engineering but apparently common. I understand
> those seals would give about a year or two of good service, so rubber
> and/or silicone shaft seals must have been quite an improvement back
> in the day.
>
> Do not archive
>
>
> 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=77435#77435
>
>
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 |
|
BlankWould Glen, from Fairfield Ian send me a pic of the kitfox rebuild
you are doing. Hope you got home ok with the cowling and it works for
you. Sorry I lost your email address. My wife was REALLY disappointed
that I didn't come get her off the tractor to view the produce.
Blue Skies
Bob Unternaehrer
shilocom@mcmsys.com
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 |
|
I asked Dee the serial number of his Model 2 kit. Seems GTOW for mine (#374) was
a pretty unambiguous 950#. But if there's any chance of increasing it to 1050,
well . . . . .
do not archive
Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Try again Marco...Nothing came through.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marco Menezes
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW
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/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
---------------------------------
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: The Taxman cometh |
After I registered my IV with the FAA I got a notice from the state
of Arizona saying they wanted money, too. I informed them that it
was not an airplane but a pile of parts that might eventually become
one (which was true!). They told me to let them know when it
actually became an airplane.
I'm pretty sure I did that... :-)
Mike G.
N728KF
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Conventional Vs Tail and other training |
Noel sez:
>I think directional stability will be the result of a number of
>factors. E.g. the speed of taxi, the number of wheels on the ground,
>the direction and speed of the wind, the condition and length of the
>runway and lets not forget the experience of the pilot.
You are describing the factors that affect controllability, not
stability. According to the Webster's dictionary, stability is,
"...the property of a body that causes it, when disturbed from a
condition of equilibrium or steady motion, to develop forces or
moments that restore the original condition..."
Just as you want the airplane's center of pressure (or surface area)
behind the center of mass to make it stable in pitch and yaw during
flight, you need the non-turning wheels behind the center of mass to
make it stable on the ground. Directional stability has only to do
with the relationship between the main (or non-turning) gear and the
center of mass. Main gear behind the center of mass = stable, main
gear in front of the center of mass = unstable.
If the wind displaces the tail end of a tail dragger to one side, it
takes positive action on the part of the pilot to bring it back
straight--the airplane wants to continue on around rather than
straighten out. A nose wheeled airplane that is displaced in the
same way tends to straighten out (not necessarily staying on the
runway, mind you).
I wasn't saying that a tail wheel airplane is uncontrollable
(obviously!), just that they are not directionally stable. This
instability means that the pilot must actively control the direction
of the airplane at all times, i.e., you have to fly it all the way to
the hangar, as it were.
Mike G.
N728KF
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | The Taxman cometh |
Regarding taxes in neighboring Minnesota.
I built my Kitfox a number of year ago. When
I got my tail number from the FAA, the State of
Minnesota promptly asked for proof of sales or
to pay use taxes. I ended up paying "use" taxes on
my component purchases (engine, prop, airframe.)
Since I had deferred payment of taxes a late
payment fee was assessed but set aside.
I'm now building an RV-9A and have the N number
reserved. The State of MN is aware of this and
is again seeking my use taxes if I can't show I paid
taxes when the components were purchased. For me
it is now "pay as you build" on taxes as I'm building
the plane.
In the end "The Taxman win-ith..."
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 |
|
My plane is #736 I know there is an "I" beam inside the spars. the
struts
are .75" and I haven't had a chance yet to check the carry through.
The plane is on floats and as the floats themselves will fly their own
weight I'm sure the plane can handle 1050lb. on floats. the issue now
becomes one of insurance. I've contacted TC (Transport Canada) and they
are
willing to change the gross weight for me.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marco
Menezes
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:23 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW
I asked Dee the serial number of his Model 2 kit. Seems GTOW for mine
(#374)
was a pretty unambiguous 950#. But if there's any chance of increasing
it to
1050, well . . . . .
do not archive
Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Try again Marco...Nothing came through.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes |
MessageNoel,
For referance my IV struts are 1.00 " -- no idea on the thickness.
I would be concerned about the carry through diameter and thickness as
well. On Floats the carry through tube supports the rear float support
legs just behind the step as well as the wing loads from the struts.
I would call John McBean for his insights.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel Loveys
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:19 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW
My plane is #736 I know there is an "I" beam inside the spars. the
struts are .75" and I haven't had a chance yet to check the carry
through.
The plane is on floats and as the floats themselves will fly their own
weight I'm sure the plane can handle 1050lb. on floats. the issue now
becomes one of insurance. I've contacted TC (Transport Canada) and they
are willing to change the gross weight for me.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marco
Menezes
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:23 AM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW
I asked Dee the serial number of his Model 2 kit. Seems GTOW for
mine (#374) was a pretty unambiguous 950#. But if there's any chance of
increasing it to 1050, well . . . . .
do not archive
Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Try again Marco...Nothing came through.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
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 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: | Conventional Vs Tail and other training |
Good explanation Mike. That's about as clear and simple as one could make
it.
Thanks,
Deke
do not archive
Michael said...
>
> You are describing the factors that affect controllability, not
> stability. According to the Webster's dictionary, stability is,
> "...the property of a body that causes it, when disturbed from a
> condition of equilibrium or steady motion, to develop forces or
> moments that restore the original condition..."
>
> Just as you want the airplane's center of pressure (or surface area)
> behind the center of mass to make it stable in pitch and yaw during
> flight, you need the non-turning wheels behind the center of mass to
> make it stable on the ground. Directional stability has only to do
> with the relationship between the main (or non-turning) gear and the
> center of mass. Main gear behind the center of mass = stable, main
> gear in front of the center of mass = unstable.
>
> If the wind displaces the tail end of a tail dragger to one side, it
> takes positive action on the part of the pilot to bring it back
> straight--the airplane wants to continue on around rather than
> straighten out. A nose wheeled airplane that is displaced in the
> same way tends to straighten out (not necessarily staying on the
> runway, mind you).
>
> I wasn't saying that a tail wheel airplane is uncontrollable
> (obviously!), just that they are not directionally stable. This
> instability means that the pilot must actively control the direction
> of the airplane at all times, i.e., you have to fly it all the way to
> the hangar, as it were.
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF
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: | Changing Model II MTOW |
MessageThat's interesting that TC would allow that as I thought they
were a lot more picky than our US Feds are. However, you're right about
the insurance companies. As soon as you put something about it in your
log book then it becomes an issue for them to use to avoid paying
anything. I'm not saying that you wouldn't win, but it sure would give
them something to give you some trouble over.
Keep us in the loop on how this goes.
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel Loveys
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:19 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW
My plane is #736 I know there is an "I" beam inside the spars. the
struts are .75" and I haven't had a chance yet to check the carry
through.
The plane is on floats and as the floats themselves will fly their own
weight I'm sure the plane can handle 1050lb. on floats. the issue now
becomes one of insurance. I've contacted TC (Transport Canada) and they
are willing to change the gross weight for me.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marco
Menezes
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:23 AM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW
I asked Dee the serial number of his Model 2 kit. Seems GTOW for
mine (#374) was a pretty unambiguous 950#. But if there's any chance of
increasing it to 1050, well . . . . .
do not archive
Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Try again Marco...Nothing came through.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
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 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Conventional Vs Tail and other training |
I agree with your definition of stability. At low speed with little or no
cross wind I think the conventional gear will be more stable simply because
the thrust coming from in front of the centre of mass works to stabilize the
plane and the increase in the distance between the mains and the steering
wheel (wheel base) being longer the conventional gear should be more stable.
At somewhat higher speed when a tricycle gear plane may have its nose wheel
off the ground, as in soft field operation and a conventional gear plane may
have its tail up then both planes will display very similar stabilities.
Only when the conventional gear is slowing down, as in landing, and the tail
is still off the ground is the operational stability marginally lower than
the a comparable tricycle plane. What are we talking about here two or
three seconds of a flight?
Yes there are places where a tricycle plane is more stable than a
conventional. Slow taxi in a strong cross wind is one. But the tail dragger
is more stable taxiing down wind than the tricycle.
Visibility is a bit better in the tricycle Kitfox than the conventional gear
Kitfox. But if you bring your tricycle gear 'Fox that close to the back of
my plane you are too darn close! Let's face it we don't have the visual
problems that the old war birds like the avenger had. The problem that Air
Venture had last summer wouldn't have happened if the plane in the back had
been a bit smaller. That problem was only partially caused by the tail
dragger... Pilot distraction is probably more to blame.
What I really disagree with is the picture painted of every conventional
gear plane being some sort of dragon that must be slain or at least tamed.
At the same time tricycle gear planes are painted to be almost auto-landing
super safe (that in itself may make them more dangerous and lead to ground
accidents). By the way, "auto-landing", I think you will find, is what
Cessna called their first tricycle gear planes.
Either way these are great planes.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Michael Gibbs
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:32 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Conventional Vs Tail and other training
>
>
> <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Noel sez:
>
> >I think directional stability will be the result of a number of
> >factors. E.g. the speed of taxi, the number of wheels on the ground,
> >the direction and speed of the wind, the condition and length of the
> >runway and lets not forget the experience of the pilot.
>
> You are describing the factors that affect controllability, not
> stability. According to the Webster's dictionary, stability is,
> "...the property of a body that causes it, when disturbed from a
> condition of equilibrium or steady motion, to develop forces or
> moments that restore the original condition..."
>
> Just as you want the airplane's center of pressure (or surface area)
> behind the center of mass to make it stable in pitch and yaw during
> flight, you need the non-turning wheels behind the center of mass to
> make it stable on the ground. Directional stability has only to do
> with the relationship between the main (or non-turning) gear and the
> center of mass. Main gear behind the center of mass = stable, main
> gear in front of the center of mass = unstable.
>
> If the wind displaces the tail end of a tail dragger to one side, it
> takes positive action on the part of the pilot to bring it back
> straight--the airplane wants to continue on around rather than
> straighten out. A nose wheeled airplane that is displaced in the
> same way tends to straighten out (not necessarily staying on the
> runway, mind you).
>
> I wasn't saying that a tail wheel airplane is uncontrollable
> (obviously!), just that they are not directionally stable. This
> instability means that the pilot must actively control the direction
> of the airplane at all times, i.e., you have to fly it all the way to
> the hangar, as it were.
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF
>
>
>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The Taxman cometh |
Mike:
I don't know how your tax department accesses things or for that matter the
FAA either.
In this country legally speaking the airplane itself is actually not the
fuselage, the engine, the wings or the tail but the data plate that says it
is a plane.... Everything else is considered to be attached to the data
plate. The data plate is worth what????? $5.00 Everything else is an
appliance to the plane and should only be taxable after it is attached to
said plane.
If you pay your tax as you purchase your parts at 7% as one poster said than
the tax man actually owes him 4% as soon as that part is attached to his
plane. I can smell a loophole there and I bet a good accountant will open
it for you.
The problem all flyers and plane owners have is they are thought of as being
very wealthy so it is not surprising that the tax man will have a hunting
agenda with us as his quarry. Borders not withstanding!
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Michael Gibbs
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:32 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: The Taxman cometh
>
>
> <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> After I registered my IV with the FAA I got a notice from the state
> of Arizona saying they wanted money, too. I informed them that it
> was not an airplane but a pile of parts that might eventually become
> one (which was true!). They told me to let them know when it
> actually became an airplane.
>
> I'm pretty sure I did that... :-)
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Model II MTOW - Strut sizes |
The stresses on the struts are tensional and I'm sure they are way over
2000lb tensional strength. ( 100% over stress for the weight of the
plane )
What is the diameter or you carry through tube? My rear support legs
are
attached to the lower chines next to the carry through tube. I haven't
looked inside yet but I wouldn't be surprised to find a couple of
cluster
welds there to distribute the stress of the rear float legs.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dave
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes
Noel,
For referance my IV struts are 1.00 " -- no idea on the thickness.
I
would be concerned about the carry through diameter and thickness as
well.
On Floats the carry through tube supports the rear float support legs
just
behind the step as well as the wing loads from the struts.
I would call John McBean for his insights.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel <mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca> Loveys
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:19 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW
My plane is #736 I know there is an "I" beam inside the spars. the
struts
are .75" and I haven't had a chance yet to check the carry through.
The plane is on floats and as the floats themselves will fly their own
weight I'm sure the plane can handle 1050lb. on floats. the issue now
becomes one of insurance. I've contacted TC (Transport Canada) and they
are
willing to change the gross weight for me.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marco
Menezes
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:23 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW
I asked Dee the serial number of his Model 2 kit. Seems GTOW for mine
(#374)
was a pretty unambiguous 950#. But if there's any chance of increasing
it to
1050, well . . . . .
do not archive
Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Try again Marco...Nothing came through.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
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
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 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: The Taxman cometh |
Yup, Same thing happend to me today. I registered and got my tail # from the FAA
not long ago and I received the registration App. from the AZ
DOT. I called them today and mentioned it was a kit. I was told to send the registration
paper in with a note stating it was a kit. As soon as it is deemed
airworthy, they want to hear from me. Surprisingly done the way it should be.
Dan, Mesa AZ
Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net> wrote:
After I registered my IV with the FAA I got a notice from the state
of Arizona saying they wanted money, too. I informed them that it
was not an airplane but a pile of parts that might eventually become
one (which was true!). They told me to let them know when it
actually became an airplane.
I'm pretty sure I did that... :-)
Mike G.
N728KF
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Directional stabilitty |
The tricycle gear handles differently no doubt.... But directionally
more
stable. I think directional stability will be the result of a number of
factors. E.g. the speed of taxi, the number of wheels on the ground, the
direction and speed of the wind, the condition and length of the runway
and
lets not forget the experience of the pilot.
Noel, the main reason for directional stabilitty of the tri-cycle
undercarriage is due to the weight being in front of the main wheels
dragging behind. As soon as you touch the deck the weight pulls the
plane straight. Whereas in a tail dragger the bulk of the weight [ C of
G ] is behind the main wheels so it has to push them. If you are not
dead square with direction of travel the weight tries, and does. come
around in front of the mains. As this happens it is called a ground
loop.
Rex.
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Directional stabilitty |
Ok Rex:
first what you are saying is to an extent true. But...The amount of
weight
on the tail wheel is only a fraction of the mains. In order to ground
loop
you have to let the the swing develop past a point of no return and you
have
to do this just before the tail wheel touches the ground. To counter
this
slight instability ( displayed only for a few seconds of a flight ) the
mains can be slightly toed out, then as the plane starts to wander off
straight the mains will actually act to pull it straight again.
Tricycle
gear planes sometimes have a slight toe in to do the exact same thing.
During almost all other aspects of ground handling except taxiing with a
strong wind into a forward quarter the tail wheel should be superior.
The
centre of gravity is lower, the wheel base between the mains and the
steering wheels is longer. Down wind it is almost impossible to trip a
conventional gear plane. The tricycle counterpart better be careful.
What can make a conventional gear plane squirrelly is putting a great
heavy
weight close to the tail wheel. My fathers plane had the battery
installed
almost right over the tail wheel. It was next to impossible to not
crack
the tail spring off at regular intervals. Inertia of the battery mass
over
the tail wheel would make any plane squirrelly on the ground in almost
any
conditions. I gave him the fix for his ground instability and he
refused to
try it. The plane was a VJ22 Sportsman which had a Lycoming 125 Hp
tractor
installed. Corrections for the added weight forward of the CG were not
calculated and to bring the CG in line they had to put the battery far,
and
I mean FAR aft. What he had was a high wing plane with a high CG and a
huge
mass in its tail. Nobody liked it on land... on the water that was
another
story.
Lets hear some concrete figures on ground accidents in Kitfoxes. Include
nose overs, tricycle trips, ground loops, wing overs etc.etc... I'll
bet
you will find there are probably more accidents per capita in tricycle
gear
small planes than are in their conventional counter parts. Also, as has
been mentioned here when there is a minor accident (broken tail wheel)
with
a conventional gear plane it is usually a cheaper fix than a collapsed
nose
wheel which can end up costing a new crank/prop/engine mount/firewall
amongst other things.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rex Shaw
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:08 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Directional stabilitty
The tricycle gear handles differently no doubt.... But directionally
more
stable. I think directional stability will be the result of a number of
factors. E.g. the speed of taxi, the number of wheels on the ground, the
direction and speed of the wind, the condition and length of the runway
and
lets not forget the experience of the pilot.
Noel, the main reason for directional stabilitty of the tri-cycle
undercarriage is due to the weight being in front of the main wheels
dragging behind. As soon as you touch the deck the weight pulls the
plane
straight. Whereas in a tail dragger the bulk of the weight [ C of G ] is
behind the main wheels so it has to push them. If you are not dead
square
with direction of travel the weight tries, and does. come around in
front of
the mains. As this happens it is called a ground loop.
Rex.
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 |
|
My Model II serial number is 345.
Dee
Do Not Archive
>From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW
>Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:49:38 -0330
>
>My plane is #736 I know there is an "I" beam inside the spars. the struts
>are .75" and I haven't had a chance yet to check the carry through.
>
>The plane is on floats and as the floats themselves will fly their own
>weight I'm sure the plane can handle 1050lb. on floats. the issue now
>becomes one of insurance. I've contacted TC (Transport Canada) and they
>are
>willing to change the gross weight for me.
>
>
>Noel
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marco Menezes
>Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:23 AM
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW
>
>
>I asked Dee the serial number of his Model 2 kit. Seems GTOW for mine
>(#374)
>was a pretty unambiguous 950#. But if there's any chance of increasing it
>to
>1050, well . . . . .
>
>do not archive
>
>Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>Try again Marco...Nothing came through.
>
>
>Noel
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>
>
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! --
|