Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:34 AM - Just A Few Days Left; Trailing Last Year... (Matt Dralle)
1. 08:21 AM - OT Got the "nod" (Andrew Matthaey)
2. 08:58 AM - Re: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes (GypsyBeeInnkeepers)
3. 09:38 AM - Re: OT Got the "nod" (Lowell Fitt)
4. 10:08 AM - Re: OT Got the "nod" (kurt schrader)
5. 10:13 AM - Re: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes (dave)
6. 10:15 AM - Re: OT Got the "nod" (dave)
7. 11:09 AM - Re: OT Got the "nod" (debrun26@juno.com)
8. 01:29 PM - Re: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes (GypsyBeeInnkeepers)
9. 02:24 PM - Re: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes (Lynn Matteson)
10. 02:25 PM - Re: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes (skyflyte@comcast.net)
11. 04:08 PM - Re: OT Got the "nod" (crazyivan)
12. 04:53 PM - Re: OT Got the "nod" (john perry)
13. 07:33 PM - Re: Conventional Vs Tail and other training (Michael Gibbs)
14. 07:41 PM - Re: Re: Taildraggers (david yeamans)
15. 09:42 PM - Re: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes (ron schick)
Message 0
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
DNA; do not archive
| Subject: | A Few Days Left; Trailing Last Year... |
Dear Listers,
There are just a few more days left of this year's List Fund Raiser! Response
has been very good, but we are behind last year in the number of people that have
made a Contribution and as a percentage of the total number of subscribers.
Please remember that there isn't any sort of commercial advertising on the Lists
and the *only* means of keeping these Lists running is through your Contributions
during this Fund Raiser.
Please make a Contribution today!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: | OT Got the "nod" |
Well, I'd like to thank everyone here for their good vibes!! It worked!
The chief pilot, after deliberating with the panel for a minute after my
interview, brought me back in and asked if I had found a crash-pad yet - I
replied no, so he said well find one by Monday!!
It was a great interview, and I was assigned the ERJ-145 (only thing we fly
LoL) with Richmond, VA as a domicile. I can't wait for class on Monday!
Thanks again,
Andrew
KF3
CFI/CFII/MEI
Soon-to-be ERJ145 F/O
P.S. Don't worry, I'll never stop flying the 'Fox :-)
_________________________________________________________________
Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger.
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes |
Somewhere in one of the old kitfox newsletters, from Denny Aircraft I
believe, is a article with a picture of a kitfox wing mounted upside
down to a test rig and a great many sand bags placed on the wing for a
static load test. I think the wing structure supported the equivalent of
over 15G's before failure. Not sure how we should relate the test to
this whole subject.
I'm away from home and the article or I would offer to upload a copy.
Maybe someone else has it?
Rex Hefferan
Colorado
Noel Loveys wrote:
> 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
> *To:* kitfox-list@matronics.com
> *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 Loveys <mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> *To:* kitfox-list@matronics.com
> <mailto: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.
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OT Got the "nod" |
Congratulations Andrew.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Matthaey" <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:20 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: OT Got the "nod"
> <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
>
> Well, I'd like to thank everyone here for their good vibes!! It worked!
>
> The chief pilot, after deliberating with the panel for a minute after my
> interview, brought me back in and asked if I had found a crash-pad yet - I
> replied no, so he said well find one by Monday!!
>
> It was a great interview, and I was assigned the ERJ-145 (only thing we
> fly LoL) with Richmond, VA as a domicile. I can't wait for class on
> Monday!
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Andrew
> KF3
> CFI/CFII/MEI
> Soon-to-be ERJ145 F/O
>
> P.S. Don't worry, I'll never stop flying the 'Fox :-)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger.
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OT Got the "nod" |
Great Andrew!
Good timing too. I am passing the torch to you. Got
a exit physical to do tomorrow. If everything is
good, I am shooting for retirement from heavies to
Fox's in March. If there is any problem, I'll
med-retire whenever. Don't want that option cause I
gotta still fly the Fox.
If all goes well, I hope to have lots more time to
upgrade, test and fly the S-5. Report to you all on
what works and how well. Fairings, VG's, gap seals
and more. The kinda fun I like along with some
X-country trips to visit our great country. What the
Fox is for. And when all the changes are done, maybe
a repaint to make her look .... ah..... kinda Foxy!
Kurt S. S-5
Do not archive
--- Andrew Matthaey <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Well, I'd like to thank everyone here for their good
> vibes!! It worked!
>
> The chief pilot, after deliberating with the panel
> for a minute after my
> interview, brought me back in and asked if I had
> found a crash-pad yet - I
> replied no, so he said well find one by Monday!!
>
> It was a great interview, and I was assigned the
> ERJ-145 (only thing we fly
> LoL) with Richmond, VA as a domicile. I can't wait
> for class on Monday!
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Andrew
> KF3
> CFI/CFII/MEI
> Soon-to-be ERJ145 F/O
>
> P.S. Don't worry, I'll never stop flying the 'Fox
> :-)
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: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes |
Where did it fail ?
The carry throguh tube would be one of the weakest links.
Rod ends would be the next weakest link I think. If you look at the Avids
they do not use rod ends.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "GypsyBeeInnkeepers" <hefferans@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes
> <hefferans@gmail.com>
>
> Somewhere in one of the old kitfox newsletters, from Denny Aircraft I
> believe, is a article with a picture of a kitfox wing mounted upside down
> to a test rig and a great many sand bags placed on the wing for a static
> load test. I think the wing structure supported the equivalent of over
> 15G's before failure. Not sure how we should relate the test to this whole
> subject.
> I'm away from home and the article or I would offer to upload a copy.
> Maybe someone else has it?
>
> Rex Hefferan
> Colorado
>
>
> Noel Loveys wrote:
>
>> 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
>> *To:* kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> *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 Loveys <mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>> *To:* kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> <mailto: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.
>>
>
>
>
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: OT Got the "nod" |
Andrew -- Way to go man.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Matthaey" <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 11:20 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: OT Got the "nod"
> <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
>
> Well, I'd like to thank everyone here for their good vibes!! It worked!
>
> The chief pilot, after deliberating with the panel for a minute after my
> interview, brought me back in and asked if I had found a crash-pad yet - I
> replied no, so he said well find one by Monday!!
>
> It was a great interview, and I was assigned the ERJ-145 (only thing we
> fly LoL) with Richmond, VA as a domicile. I can't wait for class on
> Monday!
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Andrew
> KF3
> CFI/CFII/MEI
> Soon-to-be ERJ145 F/O
>
> P.S. Don't worry, I'll never stop flying the 'Fox :-)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger.
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OT Got the "nod" |
Hey Andrew, Thanks for the call after your interview... I'm sure the r
eason they picked you for the job is because of all your kitfox time in
your log book. Couldn't have possibly been the three weeks of instructo
r time. Fly High, Layne
Do Not Archive
________________________________________________________________________
<html><P>Hey Andrew, Thanks for the call after your intervie
w... I'm sure the reason they picked you for the job is because of all&n
bsp;your kitfox time in your log book. Couldn't have possibly been
the three weeks of instructor time. Fly High, L
ayne</P>
<P>Do Not Archive </P>
<font face="Times-New-Roman" size="2"><br><br>______________________
__________________________________________________<br>
Visit <a href="http://www.juno.com/value">http://www.juno.com/value</a
> to sign up today!<br></font>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes |
I'm afraid I don't remember the details. I suspect it was an attach
point possibly the rod ends. I'll try to post the article when I can get
back and locate it.
Rex
Colorado
dave wrote:
>
> Where did it fail ?
> The carry throguh tube would be one of the weakest links.
> Rod ends would be the next weakest link I think. If you look at the
> Avids they do not use rod ends.
>
>
> Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "GypsyBeeInnkeepers"
> <hefferans@gmail.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 11:57 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes
>
>
>> <hefferans@gmail.com>
>>
>> Somewhere in one of the old kitfox newsletters, from Denny Aircraft I
>> believe, is a article with a picture of a kitfox wing mounted upside
>> down to a test rig and a great many sand bags placed on the wing for
>> a static load test. I think the wing structure supported the
>> equivalent of over 15G's before failure. Not sure how we should
>> relate the test to this whole subject.
>> I'm away from home and the article or I would offer to upload a copy.
>> Maybe someone else has it?
>>
>> Rex Hefferan
>> Colorado
>
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 |
I saw that test setup in one of the videos that Skystar produced...I
seem to recall them loading the sandbags during the video.
Lynn
On Wednesday, November 29, 2006, at 11:57 AM, GypsyBeeInnkeepers wrote:
> <hefferans@gmail.com>
>
> Somewhere in one of the old kitfox newsletters, from Denny Aircraft I
> believe, is a article with a picture of a kitfox wing mounted upside
> down to a test rig and a great many sand bags placed on the wing for a
> static load test. I think the wing structure supported the equivalent
> of over 15G's before failure. Not sure how we should relate the test
> to this whole subject.
> I'm away from home and the article or I would offer to upload a copy.
> Maybe someone else has it?
>
> Rex Hefferan
> Colorado
>
>
> Noel Loveys wrote:
>
>> 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
>> *To:* kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> *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 Loveys <mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>> *To:* kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> <mailto: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.
>>
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes |
I think the issue at the time was the welded spar/lift strut attach fitting and
they wanted to show that that was not the weak link in the airframe (as was claimed
by the Avid owners at the time). I have the article somewhere too, and
if I find it I will scan it and send it out.
Mike
490MC
-------------- Original message --------------
From: GypsyBeeInnkeepers <hefferans@gmail.com>
>
> I'm afraid I don't remember the details. I suspect it was an attach
> point possibly the rod ends. I'll try to post the article when I can get
> back and locate it.
>
> Rex
> Colorado
>
> dave wrote:
>
> >
> > Where did it fail ?
> > The carry throguh tube would be one of the weakest links.
> > Rod ends would be the next weakest link I think. If you look at the
> > Avids they do not use rod ends.
> >
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "GypsyBeeInnkeepers"
> >
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 11:57 AM
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Somewhere in one of the old kitfox newsletters, from Denny Aircraft I
> >> believe, is a article with a picture of a kitfox wing mounted upside
> >> down to a test rig and a great many sand bags placed on the wing for
> >> a static load test. I think the wing structure supported the
> >> equivalent of over 15G's before failure. Not sure how we should
> >> relate the test to this whole subject.
> >> I'm away from home and the article or I would offer to upload a copy.
> >> Maybe someone else has it?
> >>
> >> Rex Hefferan
> >> Colorado
> >
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>I think the issue at the time was the welded spar/lift strut attach fitting
and they wanted to show that that was not the weak link in the airframe (as
was claimed by the Avid owners at the time). I have the article somewhere
too, and if I find it I will scan it and send it out.</DIV>
<DIV> Mike</DIV>
<DIV> 490MC</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: GypsyBeeInnkeepers
<hefferans@gmail.com> <BR><BR>> --> Kitfox-List message posted
by: GypsyBeeInnkeepers <HEFFERANS@GMAIL.COM><BR>> <BR>> I'm afraid I
don't remember the details. I suspect it was an attach <BR>> point possibly
the rod ends. I'll try to post the article when I can get <BR>> back and
locate it. <BR>> <BR>> Rex <BR>> Colorado <BR>> <BR>> dave wrote:
<BR>> <BR>> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <DAVE@CFISHER.COM><BR>>
> <BR>> > Where did it fail ? <BR>> > The carry
throguh tube would be one of the weakest links. <BR>> > Rod ends would
be the next weakest link I think. If you look at the <BR>> > Avids they
do not use rod ends. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > Dave <BR>>
> <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR
>>
> <BR>> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "GypsyBeeInnkeepers" <BR>>
> <HEFFERANS@GMAIL.COM><BR>> > To: <KITFOX-LIST@MATRONICS.COM><BR>>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 11:57 AM <BR>> > Subject:
Re: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: GypsyBeeInnkeepers <BR>>
>> <HEFFERANS@GMAIL.COM><BR>> >> <BR>> >> Somewhere
in one of the old kitfox newsletters, from Denny Aircraft I <BR>> >>
believe, is a article with a picture of a kitfox wing mounted upside <BR>>
>> down to a test rig and a great many sand bags placed on the wing for
<BR>> >> a static load test. I think the wing structure supported the
<BR>> >> equivalent of over 15G's before failure. Not sure how we should
<BR>> >> relate the test to this whole subject. <BR>> >>
I'm away from home and the article or I would offer
to up
att Dr
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OT Got the "nod" |
Congrats. You're on your way to thousands of boring hours punctuated by the proverbial
moments of shear terror.
--------
Dave
Speedster 912 UL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=77944#77944
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: OT Got the "nod" |
Congratulations Andrew
Fly safe .
John Perry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Matthaey" <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 10:20 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: OT Got the "nod"
> <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
>
> Well, I'd like to thank everyone here for their good vibes!! It worked!
>
> The chief pilot, after deliberating with the panel for a minute after my
> interview, brought me back in and asked if I had found a crash-pad yet - I
> replied no, so he said well find one by Monday!!
>
> It was a great interview, and I was assigned the ERJ-145 (only thing we
> fly LoL) with Richmond, VA as a domicile. I can't wait for class on
> Monday!
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Andrew
> KF3
> CFI/CFII/MEI
> Soon-to-be ERJ145 F/O
>
> P.S. Don't worry, I'll never stop flying the 'Fox :-)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger.
>
>
>
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: Conventional Vs Tail and other training |
Noel sez:
>I agree with your definition of stability. At low speed with little
>or no cross wind...thrust coming from in front of the centre of
>mass...At somewhat higher speed when a tricycle gear plane may have
>its nose wheel off the ground...and a conventional gear plane may
>have its tail up then both planes will display very similar
>stabilities.
You say you agree with the definition of stability and yet you didn't
get it at all. Lifting the nose or tail wheel has nothing to do with
stability but it does have something to do with controlability.
Stability has only to do with the relationship between the pivot
point--the main landing gear in this case--and the center of mass.
It has nothing to do with engine power or air over the tail or
speed--these all affect controlability, not stability.
There are plenty of controlable vehicles that are unstable.
Bicycles, for example are very unstable yet most of us find them easy
to control. Without active input from a pilot, though, the bike
falls right over. That said, we all know it takes some practice and
a few spills to master the balance required to ride one.
>What I really disagree with is the picture painted of every
>conventional gear plane being some sort of dragon...[and] tricycle
>gear planes are painted to be almost auto-landing super safe...
I hope you aren't saying that I made either of those claims.
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: | Re: Taildraggers |
The FAA isn't any different than all the County, State, or Federal
highway departments, someone has to die before they make that
place safe
----- Original Message -----
From: kirk hull
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 9:16 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Taildraggers
The requirement for a tail wheel endorsement came about after most
students
were learning to fly in nose wheels and there were a number of
accidents
when they first tried to fly a tail wheel. The FAA rarely make any
changes
until someone dies.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Gibbs
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 11:01 AM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Taildraggers
<MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Lynn sez:
>I wonder if the FAA required a similar endorsement when the tricycle
>gear first came out? After all, pilots up until then had ONLY
>taildragger experience.
Since tricycle gear airplanes are inherently directionally stable on
the ground, I doubt it. :-)
Mike G.
N728KF
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: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes |
Rex I have that picture somewhere in My Avid builders manual. Never saw it
in all of my Kitfox materials. Perhaps there is one, but not in my 92'
speedster manual. Last time I scanned and posted I overdosed the Avid photo
section. Not very good at downsizing so if someone else finds one
first..... Ron NB Ore
>From: GypsyBeeInnkeepers <hefferans@gmail.com>
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes
>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:57:54 -0700
>
>
>Somewhere in one of the old kitfox newsletters, from Denny Aircraft I
>believe, is a article with a picture of a kitfox wing mounted upside down
>to a test rig and a great many sand bags placed on the wing for a static
>load test. I think the wing structure supported the equivalent of over
>15G's before failure. Not sure how we should relate the test to this whole
>subject.
>I'm away from home and the article or I would offer to upload a copy. Maybe
>someone else has it?
>
>Rex Hefferan
>Colorado
>
>
>Noel Loveys wrote:
>
>>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
>> *To:* kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> *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 Loveys <mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>> *To:* kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> <mailto: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.
>>
>>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Shopping has everything on your holiday list. Get expert picks by style,
age, and price. Try it!
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId00,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata 0601&tcode=wlmtagline
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! --
|