Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:25 AM - Last "Official" Day Of The List Fund Raiser! (Matt Dralle)
1. 05:16 AM - Beacon? Strobe? (Dan Billingsley)
2. 05:54 AM - Re: Beacon? Strobe? (kirk hull)
3. 06:50 AM - Re: Re: Conventional Vs Tail and other training (Noel Loveys)
4. 07:01 AM - Re: Re: Conventional Vs Tail and other training (dave)
5. 07:08 AM - Re: Re: Conventional Vs Tail and other training (GENTRYLL@aol.com)
6. 07:15 AM - Re: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes (Lowell Fitt)
7. 07:21 AM - Re: Re: Conventional Vs Tail and other training (Lowell Fitt)
8. 07:24 AM - Handling Characteristics of a Pacer vs. Kitfox (GENTRYLL@aol.com)
9. 07:35 AM - Re: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes (dave)
10. 07:45 AM - Re: Re: Conventional Vs Tail and other training (Noel Loveys)
11. 09:58 AM - Re: Re: Conventional Vs Tail and other training (kurt schrader)
12. 10:14 AM - Re: Re: Conventional Vs Tail and other training (dave)
13. 11:41 AM - Re: Re: Conventional Vs Tail and other training (kurt schrader)
14. 05:27 PM - Re: Beacon? Strobe? (Dan Billingsley)
15. 06:29 PM - Re: Beacon? Strobe? (ron schick)
16. 07:30 PM - Re: Beacon? Strobe? (kirk hull)
17. 08:52 PM - Re: Beacon? Strobe? (Bill Hammond)
18. 09:08 PM - Failure Point (Rex Shaw)
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: | Last "Official" Day Of The List Fund Raiser! |
Dear Listers,
Well, its November 30th and that means three things...
1) Today I am now officially 43 years old... (arg...)
2) It marks that last "official" day of the List Fund Raiser!
3) Its the last day I will be bugging everyone for a whole year! :-)
If you use the Lists and enjoy the content and the no-advertising, no-spam, and
no-censorship way in which they're run, please make a Contribution today to support
their continued operation and upkeep. Your $20 or $30 goes a long way
to further the List operation and keep the bills paid.
I will be posting the List of Contributors next week, so make sure your name is
on it! :-)
Thank you to everyone that has made a Contribution so far this year! It is greatly
appreciated.
List Contributions: http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Best regards,
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 |
|
Has anyone found or know of a low profile beacon that could be fit to the top of
the vertical Stab? What are others doing for this? I have a 912s, so the Amp
draw needs to be kept low.
Still Building
Thanks,
Dan B
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 |
|
I made mine out of a tail light assembly with a wing tip lens and a
heavy-duty turn signal flasher.
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:15 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
Has anyone found or know of a low profile beacon that could be fit to the
top of the vertical Stab? What are others doing for this? I have a 912s, so
the Amp draw needs to be kept low.
Still Building
Thanks,
Dan B
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: Conventional Vs Tail and other training |
Let me get this straight ... A vehicle with a high centre of gravity on a
short wheel base is more stable than the same machine configured with a
longer wheel base and a lower centre of gravity.
Ok I got it ....Not!
> Stability has only to do with the relationship between the pivot
point--the main landing gear in this case--and the centre of mass.
I think you are over simplifying things. I will agree that the tricycle
plane will have more longitudal stability than its conventional counterpart
but only for the few seconds after touch down. After that it depends on
many other factors.
The conventional aircraft is only less stable for a few seconds of every
flight and yes that is more than enough time to have an accident. The
tricycle gear also has seconds of instability especially taxiing downwind
with the wind to either aft quarter and that is either a high speed or low
speed taxi.
As for the bicycle if you spin the wheels fast enough it will stay up on
it's own.
And slaying the dragon I was referring to the consensus which seems to be
displayed by tricycle operators. Not necessarily every tricycle operator
and not any particular operator.
I notice no one has said anything about the numbers of ground accidents
involving tricycle vs. conventional gear planes. From that there are only
two deductions ... They all have accidents or there are no accidents.
Either way it would indicate neither configuration is more stable.
Me......
I fly floats.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Michael Gibbs
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 12:02 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Conventional Vs Tail and other training
>
>
> <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> 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 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: Conventional Vs Tail and other training |
I would assume that most ground handling accidents are 99.9 % pilot error
no matter what the gear config is .
Some can fly taildraggers and some cannot not it seems.
All personal preferance from my viewpoint but that being said I am sure that
there is a far greater amount of taildragger Kitfoxes produced and a small
percentage that cannot physically or have the desire to fly them so they
opt for a tri- gear.
Taildragger Kitfox is a very tame aircraft to fly, it is the pilot that is
not competant that does not like them.
Can we end this topic now ?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:49 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Conventional Vs Tail and other training
>
> Let me get this straight ... A vehicle with a high centre of gravity on a
> short wheel base is more stable than the same machine configured with a
> longer wheel base and a lower centre of gravity.
>
> Ok I got it ....Not!
>
>> Stability has only to do with the relationship between the pivot
> point--the main landing gear in this case--and the centre of mass.
>
> I think you are over simplifying things. I will agree that the tricycle
> plane will have more longitudal stability than its conventional
> counterpart
> but only for the few seconds after touch down. After that it depends on
> many other factors.
>
> The conventional aircraft is only less stable for a few seconds of every
> flight and yes that is more than enough time to have an accident. The
> tricycle gear also has seconds of instability especially taxiing downwind
> with the wind to either aft quarter and that is either a high speed or low
> speed taxi.
>
> As for the bicycle if you spin the wheels fast enough it will stay up on
> it's own.
>
> And slaying the dragon I was referring to the consensus which seems to be
> displayed by tricycle operators. Not necessarily every tricycle operator
> and not any particular operator.
>
> I notice no one has said anything about the numbers of ground accidents
> involving tricycle vs. conventional gear planes. From that there are only
> two deductions ... They all have accidents or there are no accidents.
> Either way it would indicate neither configuration is more stable.
>
> Me......
>
> I fly floats.
>
> Noel
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> Michael Gibbs
>> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 12:02 AM
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Conventional Vs Tail and other training
>>
>>
>> <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>>
>> 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 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: Conventional Vs Tail and other training |
This question is kind of an offshoot of the current topic. I would like to
ask those of you that have a lot of Kitfox or other light taildragger time,
if a noticeable difference in horsepower of say a 65 hp. 582 and a 100 hp
Subaru cause's a noticeable difference in rudder control due to the difference
in
torque.
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: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes |
In the sales brochure from the period I ordered my kit (1992) there is the
picture mentioned, but I have never seen a discussion describing the test
and the failure mode, except on the list. It shows a fuselage with wings,
upside-down with bags of something that created bowing on both spars
inboard of the strut and sagging outboard. There is also a picture of the
horizontal Stabilizer, this time right side up with similar weights on it.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "ron schick" <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes
> <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
>
> 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
>>
>><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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
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: Conventional Vs Tail and other training |
Mike,
A bit ago you intruduced the center of pressure into the stability equation.
I am totally confused now. Isn't the center of pressure a factor when
moving on the ground as well as in the air?
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gibbs" <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 7:32 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: 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 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: | Handling Characteristics of a Pacer vs. Kitfox |
I earned my taildragger endorsement in a conventional gear Cessna 150. I
transitioned to my Kitfox that I built with no additional training, just a lot
of reading. It wasn't too pretty at first, but with a little advice from
some of you guys, it looks a lot better now. I am almost finished with a
Wagabond which started out life as a Pacer. It will handle like a Pacer with
a
stick instead of a yoke. The question is "Will the Pacer be more difficult or
less difficult than the Kitfox to handle on the ground. I know the mains
are further apart and the length from the mains to the tailwheel is longer so
those are positive for easier handling. On the downside, the Pacer will be on
the ground longer than the Kitfox due to primarily weight and design.
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 |
Lowell,
I am sure you have seen this site
http://www.aircraftdesigns.com/experience.html but they meniton the Kitfox
there and should some sandbag loaded wings on that page. Don't think a
Kitfox in those pics
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes
>
> In the sales brochure from the period I ordered my kit (1992) there is
> the picture mentioned, but I have never seen a discussion describing the
> test and the failure mode, except on the list. It shows a fuselage with
> wings, upside-down with bags of something that created bowing on both
> spars inboard of the strut and sagging outboard. There is also a picture
> of the horizontal Stabilizer, this time right side up with similar weights
> on it.
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ron schick" <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 9:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes
>
>
>> <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>><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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Conventional Vs Tail and other training |
My sentiments exactly.... Especially the last one.
Do not archive
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dave
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 11:31 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Conventional Vs Tail and other training
>
>
>
> I would assume that most ground handling accidents are 99.9
> % pilot error
> no matter what the gear config is .
> Some can fly taildraggers and some cannot not it seems.
> All personal preferance from my viewpoint but that being said
> I am sure that
> there is a far greater amount of taildragger Kitfoxes
> produced and a small
> percentage that cannot physically or have the desire to fly
> them so they
> opt for a tri- gear.
>
> Taildragger Kitfox is a very tame aircraft to fly, it is the
> pilot that is
> not competant that does not like them.
>
> Can we end this topic now ?
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:49 AM
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Conventional Vs Tail and other training
>
>
> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> >
> > Let me get this straight ... A vehicle with a high centre
> of gravity on a
> > short wheel base is more stable than the same machine
> configured with a
> > longer wheel base and a lower centre of gravity.
> >
> > Ok I got it ....Not!
> >
> >> Stability has only to do with the relationship between the pivot
> > point--the main landing gear in this case--and the centre of mass.
> >
> > I think you are over simplifying things. I will agree that
> the tricycle
> > plane will have more longitudal stability than its conventional
> > counterpart
> > but only for the few seconds after touch down. After that
> it depends on
> > many other factors.
> >
> > The conventional aircraft is only less stable for a few
> seconds of every
> > flight and yes that is more than enough time to have an
> accident. The
> > tricycle gear also has seconds of instability especially
> taxiing downwind
> > with the wind to either aft quarter and that is either a
> high speed or low
> > speed taxi.
> >
> > As for the bicycle if you spin the wheels fast enough it
> will stay up on
> > it's own.
> >
> > And slaying the dragon I was referring to the consensus
> which seems to be
> > displayed by tricycle operators. Not necessarily every
> tricycle operator
> > and not any particular operator.
> >
> > I notice no one has said anything about the numbers of
> ground accidents
> > involving tricycle vs. conventional gear planes. From that
> there are only
> > two deductions ... They all have accidents or there are no
> accidents.
> > Either way it would indicate neither configuration is more stable.
> >
> > Me......
> >
> > I fly floats.
> >
> > Noel
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> >> Michael Gibbs
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 12:02 AM
> >> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Conventional Vs Tail and other training
> >>
> >>
> >> <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
> >>
> >> 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 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: Conventional Vs Tail and other training |
I got my TW endorsement in a KF-4 with a 100 hp NSI
Soob. It was amazing to me how this plane wanted to
make a 15 degree right turn as I raised the tail on
takeoff and then a left turn as I rotated for lift
off. Very pronounced tendency. It was much easier to
land than takeoff.
I was really worried when I first flew my S-5 with the
140 hp NSI in it. I expected an even worse turn to
correct for as I changed the plain of rotation of the
big gyroscope out front. Instead it had almost no
turning tendancy at all. Well, maybe 1/3 of the
tendancy of the S-4.
I think there are more factors than hp at play here,
like prop size and weight, rpm, and aircraft geometry.
My friends tell me that the newer Maules are the worst
plane on the ground that they fly. The big tails and
relatively smaller rudders make them want to turn into
the wind more and give you less power to stop that.
This is where stability works against you and more
controlability would be helpful.
The whole discussion of controlability and stability
is about twice as complex as so far covered. You have
ground stability and aerodynamic stability. You have
ground controlability and aerodynamic controlability.
Then brakes, wheel alignment, adverse yaw and other
factors to consider.
Pilotage: If you normally react to a ground loop by
moving the stick to hold the outside wing up, in a KF
your adverse yaw will help you control the plane. If
you normally move the stick with the rudder to keep
the plane from turning, you will make it ground loop
worse. You may not even know which you do, since most
people concentrate on what they are doing with the
rudder on the ground.
There is so much more to this that it is very
extensive to get into. But I think the origional
topic is more of, which do you like and what can I
handle? Stick shift or automatic?
I agree with the idea of trying both enough to be
profficient, then choosing the one you like. The rest
is pride.
Kurt S. S-5 KitFox (N-210F "Heavy")
--- GENTRYLL@aol.com wrote:
> This question is kind of an offshoot of the current
> topic. I would like to
> ask those of you that have a lot of Kitfox or other
> light taildragger time,
> if a noticeable difference in horsepower of say a 65
> hp. 582 and a 100 hp
> Subaru cause's a noticeable difference in rudder
> control due to the difference in torque.
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 |
kurt
would you contribute that to asseymetrical thrust and P factor ?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "kurt schrader" <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Conventional Vs Tail and other training
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> I got my TW endorsement in a KF-4 with a 100 hp NSI
> Soob. It was amazing to me how this plane wanted to
> make a 15 degree right turn as I raised the tail on
> takeoff and then a left turn as I rotated for lift
> off. Very pronounced tendency. It was much easier to
> land than takeoff.
>
> I was really worried when I first flew my S-5 with the
> 140 hp NSI in it. I expected an even worse turn to
> correct for as I changed the plain of rotation of the
> big gyroscope out front. Instead it had almost no
> turning tendancy at all. Well, maybe 1/3 of the
> tendancy of the S-4.
>
> I think there are more factors than hp at play here,
> like prop size and weight, rpm, and aircraft geometry.
>
> My friends tell me that the newer Maules are the worst
> plane on the ground that they fly. The big tails and
> relatively smaller rudders make them want to turn into
> the wind more and give you less power to stop that.
> This is where stability works against you and more
> controlability would be helpful.
>
> The whole discussion of controlability and stability
> is about twice as complex as so far covered. You have
> ground stability and aerodynamic stability. You have
> ground controlability and aerodynamic controlability.
> Then brakes, wheel alignment, adverse yaw and other
> factors to consider.
>
> Pilotage: If you normally react to a ground loop by
> moving the stick to hold the outside wing up, in a KF
> your adverse yaw will help you control the plane. If
> you normally move the stick with the rudder to keep
> the plane from turning, you will make it ground loop
> worse. You may not even know which you do, since most
> people concentrate on what they are doing with the
> rudder on the ground.
>
> There is so much more to this that it is very
> extensive to get into. But I think the origional
> topic is more of, which do you like and what can I
> handle? Stick shift or automatic?
>
> I agree with the idea of trying both enough to be
> profficient, then choosing the one you like. The rest
> is pride.
>
> Kurt S. S-5 KitFox (N-210F "Heavy")
>
> --- GENTRYLL@aol.com wrote:
>
>> This question is kind of an offshoot of the current
>> topic. I would like to
>> ask those of you that have a lot of Kitfox or other
>> light taildragger time,
>> if a noticeable difference in horsepower of say a 65
>> hp. 582 and a 100 hp
>> Subaru cause's a noticeable difference in rudder
>> control due to the difference in torque.
>
>
>
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 |
Hi Dave,
Actually neither of those were primary in that KF-IV
case. The NSI prop turns CCW, so it takes left rudder
to fight P factor and it would turn right as you power
up. The rotating wind behind the prop would push the
tail left - nose right. Yes, that happens, but not
changing at tail lift or rotation.
Torque in the CCW rotation case makes the plane turn
right too. Once your rpms are up, I think you've
adjusted for it and the other forces make primary
changes.
Asseymetrical thrust does change at rotation, but in
the NSI case, it turns left as the tail comes up
because the downward moving blade loses thrust on the
left side and the upward moving blade increases thrust
on the right side.
The big factor for that plane was gyroscopic - a big
right turn as you lift the tail and a left turn at
liftoff. And from the inside the prop really looked
big too.
You've got all 4 forces at work and some against the
other. And they change as you accellerate and rotate.
The plane goes with the winner of the moment.
I suppose in the big war birds, torque at powerup, P
factor as you rolled, followed by gyroscopic and
assymetrical thrust at tail lift and rotation keep
them dancing on the pedals.
When I did my spins during testing, I found the
spinner back contacted the cowl due to the gyroscope
forces, even at idle rpm, during those spins. It is
the only time my cowl took a hit in all my maneuvers.
Kurt S.
--- dave <dave@cfisher.com> wrote:
> kurt
>
> would you contribute that to asseymetrical thrust
> and P factor ?
>
> Dave
Cheap talk?
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 |
|
Kirk,
Thanks for the idea. I just can't stand the thought of paying Whellen $300 for
a friken lightbulb. I found a source for high intensity LED's and plan to see
what I can develop.
Dan
kirk hull <kirkhull@kc.rr.com> wrote:
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } I made mine out of a
tail light assembly with a wing tip lens and a heavy-duty turn signal flasher.
---------------------------------
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:15 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
Has anyone found or know of a low profile beacon that could be fit to the top
of the vertical Stab? What are others doing for this? I have a 912s, so the
Amp draw needs to be kept low.
Still Building
Thanks,
Dan B
www.aeroelectric.com
www.buildersbooks.com
www.kitlog.com
www.homebuilthelp.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
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 |
|
Dan go to Chief Aircraft or Aircraft Spruce. There are self contained
beacons for 50- 125.00. I found one on fleabay and mounted it on my
vertical stab. I used a plastic funnel cut to fit down over the stab, then
poured full of epoxy and chopped glass for a nice fairing/ mount. The low
profile thing is hard to achieve without needing a belly mount also. Ron NB
Ore
>From: Dan Billingsley <dan@azshowersolutions.com>
>To: kitfox-list <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:15:25 -0800 (PST)
>
>Has anyone found or know of a low profile beacon that could be fit to the
>top of the vertical Stab? What are others doing for this? I have a 912s, so
>the Amp draw needs to be kept low.
> Still Building
> Thanks,
> Dan B
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
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 |
|
I had the same feeling and gutted the fixture and made a micarda insert
that holds a 20 watt halogen bulb from the auto parts store ($1.50). The
actual wheelen parts came from a junk pile at the local shop. LED's would
work great inside this type of fixture as they do not but out as much heat.
Where are you getting your LED's and how big are they?
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:26 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
Kirk,
Thanks for the idea. I just can't stand the thought of paying Whellen $300
for a friken lightbulb. I found a source for high intensity LED's and plan
to see what I can develop.
Dan
kirk hull <kirkhull@kc.rr.com> wrote:
I made mine out of a tail light assembly with a wing tip lens and a
heavy-duty turn signal flasher.
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:15 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
Has anyone found or know of a low profile beacon that could be fit to the
top of the vertical Stab? What are others doing for this? I have a 912s, so
the Amp draw needs to be kept low.
Still Building
Thanks,
Dan B
www.aeroelectric.com
www.kitlog.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Beacon? Strobe? |
I went with the LEDs and constructed "bulbs" which fit into the
unmodified Whelen sockets. Sources, pictures, and specifics are
on my web site (about halfway down the page) at:
www.itsys3.com/kitfox/discover.shtml
Bill Hammond
Series 6 N913KF
Parker, Colorado
kirk hull wrote:
> I had the same feeling and gutted the fixture and made a micarda insert
> that holds a 20 watt halogen bulb from the auto parts store ($1.50).
> The actual wheelen parts came from a junk pile at the local shop.
> LEDs would work great inside this type of fixture as they do not but
> out as much heat. Where are you getting your LEDs and how big are they?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:26 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
>
>
>
> Kirk,
>
> Thanks for the idea. I just can't stand the thought of paying Whellen
> $300 for a friken lightbulb. I found a source for high intensity LED's
> and plan to see what I can develop.
>
> Dan
>
> kirk hull <kirkhull@kc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> I made mine out of a tail light assembly with a wing tip lens and a
> heavy-duty turn signal flasher.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
> Billingsley
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:15 AM
> To: kitfox-list
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
>
>
>
> Has anyone found or know of a low profile beacon that could be fit
> to the top of the vertical Stab? What are others doing for this? I
> have a 912s, so the Amp draw needs to be kept low.
>
> Still Building
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan B
>
>
>
>
>
> www.aeroelectric.com
>
> www.kitlog.com
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> www.aeroelectric.com
>
> www.kitlog.com <http://www.kitlog.com>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
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
Dave,
I'm only going on memory here so please no one take it for
gospel but I seem to remember the weakest link is the rod end but also
here in Australia anyway we have Skyfox's that are rough copies of
Kitfox's. These are apparently failing at the carry through tube and
there is an AD out for that. I understand they have a weaker tube, maybe
wall thickness not sure !
Also took my interest to read the Avid does not use rod ends. What do
they do ? I assume just a bolt ! Is it in shear ?
I think that loading the wing to failure point is on a video copied by
Grant Fluent on this list. I guess anyone that wants a copy could first
check with Grant that this is on the Video then buy a copy from him. I
remember his price was extremely reasonable and there was a lot of
interesting stuff on the DVD copy like loops and rolls in a Kitfox.
Rex.
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! --
|