Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:20 AM - AW: Denney Aerocraft Owners Newsletter. (Werner Keiper)
2. 07:16 AM - ? ? ? Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen o (JetPilot)
3. 07:31 AM - Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like this (JetPilot)
4. 08:51 AM - Kitfox III - New Builder - Need Help (Ken Harrison)
5. 09:11 AM - Re: Kitfox to look at (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
6. 09:46 AM - Re: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like this (Guy Buchanan)
7. 10:13 AM - Re: Kitfox III - New Builder - Need Help (Noel Loveys)
8. 10:32 AM - Re: FW: Kitfox List (jdmcbean)
9. 10:46 AM - Re: Kitfox III - New Builder - Need Help (jdmcbean)
10. 10:50 AM - Re: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like this (Clem Nichols)
11. 10:51 AM - Re: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like this (Clem Nichols)
12. 11:01 AM - Re: Older Kitfox cruise speeds (and a new challenge for Michel's simulator) (Paul Seehafer)
13. 11:06 AM - Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like this (JetPilot)
14. 11:13 AM - Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like this (JetPilot)
15. 11:35 AM - Re: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like this (Dave G.)
16. 11:49 AM - Re: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like this (Guy Buchanan)
17. 01:11 PM - Re: Older Kitfox cruise speeds (and a new challenge for Michel's simulator) (Michel Verheughe)
18. 01:44 PM - Re: Older Kitfox cruise speeds (and a new challenge for Michel's simulator) (Lynn Matteson)
19. 03:53 PM - Re: Older Kitfox cruise speeds (and a new challenge for Michel's simulator) (kurt schrader)
20. 04:31 PM - Flight Sim X (Joel)
21. 04:56 PM - Re: Older Kitfox cruise speeds (and a new challenge for Michel's simulator) (Noel Loveys)
22. 06:49 PM - Difference between the model II and model III. (Torgeir Mortensen)
23. 07:17 PM - Re: Difference between the model II and model III. (john perry)
24. 07:43 PM - Re: Flight Sim X (W & R Beck)
25. 08:00 PM - Re: Flight Sim X (kirk hull)
26. 08:36 PM - Re: Difference between the model II and model III. (Noel Loveys)
27. 09:41 PM - Re: Flight Sim X (noel anderson)
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: | Denney Aerocraft Owners Newsletter. |
Hi Torgeir,
That is really great that you did this work for us! It takes some time to
scan this things.
Thank`s a lot!
Wisch you a Merry Christmas.
Werner
Werner Keiper / Kitfox III / Germany
Do not archive
-----Ursprngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] Im Auftrag von Torgeir
Mortensen
Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Dezember 2006 02:08
An: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Betreff: Kitfox-List: Denney Aerocraft Owners Newsletter.
--> <torgemor@online.no>
Hi Folks,
We've been talking about those old owners newsletters, the builders info
"magazine" from Denney Aerocraft issued for free to every builder at those
days..
Lots of info is in this magazines, even manual update/revisions.
I have scanned all of these magazines I have, just for you folks to see.
Here's lots of pictures of the "undercambred" Kitfoxers pre. model IV and
the builders. It is really interesting to read about "Kitfox building" at
that time, from the old Kifox factory.
Before you start downloading, just remember this info might be outdated or
omitted -so every thing in here might need to be checked for validity
against SB's ETC.
Also, some of these pdf files is very large and may not contain very useful
information for you, I.E. the old brochure for the model II.
All of the Owners Newsletter might be interesting, some of them is very
large -this is to keep the quality of all the pictures in there as good as
possible.
The Kitfox general info is also worth downloading.
The server hosting this files is really fast, however, if you do not have a
fast internet line -this will take some time.
The "lift strut and fitting" load test, is found in the May 1990 issue.
Merry Christmas.
Torgeir
The files are here:
http://upngo.net/kitfox/
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: ? ? ? Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen o |
Graeme Toft wrote:
> Hi Dave, I have a friend with an Australian Light Wing. (Not as good as a
> Kitfox :) and he has the same prop with a 2" spacer also. As an indication
> of their ability to do the job, he hit a cow that ran into his takeoff role
> and he hit it smack bang in the rear end. It completely destroyed the Kiev
> as they are a foam filed hollow prop but the spacer was returned to service
> without a blemish.
>
> Regards
> Graeme
>
> ---
That is good to hear, is your friend running a 912-S on that Light wing ??? I
was hoping to find more of those in use out there on similar engines, if so others
have already tested it and im not the first one.
Was the Cow returned to service also ?
JettPilot
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83568#83568
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: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like |
this
Thanks for the response Guy,
The spacer is very close to the same size as the 912-S Gearbox output shaft, but
the sapcer is aluminum, and the shaft is hardened steel, so im sure that the
spacer is the weak point in the system.
What mkes it even worse, unlike a Kitfox, on my pusher Kolb the prop will fly into
my wing if the spacer breaks, most likely rendering it uncontrollable as the
aileron actuator tubes are on the trailing edge of the wing. If I'm really
having a bad day, the rotating prop might even cut my tail boom in half which
is a couple inches below :x
The good news is that the Kiev prop is much lighter than the Warp Drive props are.
Kiev Props are well within Rotax Specs for rotational mass on the output
shaft. You seem to know a lot about this, I think the material is milled billet,
but I am not sure. It was expensive.... Bottom line, given what you know
about materials, would you fly this, or test fly it ? If it lets go, its much
more than an engine out, It would surely create an opportunity to test my BRS
!
JettPilot
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83569#83569
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: | Kitfox III - New Builder - Need Help |
Hello all,
I have purchased a Kitfox Model III unfinished, and am wondering if there
is any possibility of finding a complete builders manual anywhere. I have
bits and pieces, but I'm concerned I'll miss something very important.
Also, I am in need of a few items for the kit and would appreciate any
help. If any of you have any of these for sale please let me know.
1. I basically need an entire 582 firewall forward package for the
Model III.
2. Of course if I can't find an entire package, I'll need an engine
mount for starters. Is that something that is still being fabricated, or
will I have to find a used one?
3. "Bumps" engine cowling for Model III.
4. Header tank.
5. Firewall. If I can't find one, is it possible to obtain the
dimensions of all those parts that go into the firewall so I can fabricate
it?
6. Throttle assembly parts to convert verner throttle motion to the
Rotax cable motion. My frame has the tangs but I don't have those parts.
7. Can you tell me the AN designation, or where to obtain the
isolation mounts that hold the instrument panel. My assembly manual assumes
you have the parts from the kit and does not list what they are.
8. Also, I see lots of parts out there for the Model IV. Can anyone
tell me if the engine mount holes on the fuselage are the same for the III
and IV. Is the cowling the same for III and IV?
Thanks so much for any help and I look forward to the build.
Ken Harrison
Kitfox III Rotax 582 75% Done
Lancaster, SC
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: Kitfox to look at |
Don, I am located in Logan--a 100 miles north of Orem. I would be happy to show
him my model IV and give him a ride.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
>
> All,
>
> I have a person interested in my Fox. He is 6'3" @240#. He is located
> in Orem Utah (about 30 miles south of Salt Lake City) and has never really
> seen a kitfox. He is willing to travel up to 150 miles to look/sit/possibly
> fly in a Kitfox. Is there anyone in that area that could give the guy a
> look and at least let him sit in one. Quite frankly, I told him not to even
> consider purchasing a Kitfox or anything else until he could at least see
> one. He's operating on the Kitfox reputation only.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Don Smythe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>Don, I am located in Logan--a 100 miles north of Orem. I would be happy
to show him my model IV and give him a ride.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>John Kerr</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: "Don Smythe"
<dosmythe@cox.net> <BR><BR>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don
Smythe" <DOSMYTHE@COX.NET><BR>> <BR>> All, <BR>> <BR>> I have
a person interested in my Fox. He is 6'3" @240#. He is located <BR>> in Orem
Utah (about 30 miles south of Salt Lake City) and has never really <BR>>
seen a kitfox. He is willing to travel up to 150 miles to look/sit/possibly <BR>>
fly in a Kitfox. Is there anyone in that area that could give the guy a
<BR>> look and at least let him sit in one. Quite frankly, I told him not
to even <BR>> consider purchasing a Kitfox or anything else until he could
at least see <BR>> one. He's operating on the Kitfox reputation only. <BR>>
<BR>> Thanks, <BR>> <BR>> Don Smythe <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>&g
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one |
like this
At 07:31 AM 12/26/2006, you wrote:
>The spacer is very close to the same size as the 912-S Gearbox
>output shaft, but the sapcer is aluminum, and the shaft is hardened
>steel, so im sure that the spacer is the weak point in the system.
Really. The spacer looks so much larger in the picture. The strength
and stiffness varies as the radius to the fourth power, so any
increase is quite significant.
>What mkes it even worse, unlike a Kitfox, on my pusher Kolb the prop
>will fly into my wing if the spacer breaks, most likely rendering it
>uncontrollable as the aileron actuator tubes are on the trailing
>edge of the wing. If I'm really having a bad day, the rotating prop
>might even cut my tail boom in half which is a couple inches below :x
I guess it's a good thing you've got the BRS.
>The good news is that the Kiev prop is much lighter than the Warp
>Drive props are. Kiev Props are well within Rotax Specs for
>rotational mass on the output shaft. You seem to know a lot about
>this, I think the material is milled billet, but I am not sure. It
>was expensive.... Bottom line, given what you know about materials,
>would you fly this, or test fly it ? If it lets go, its much more
>than an engine out, It would surely create an opportunity to test my BRS !
No, I wouldn't "test" fly it. I'm just too much of a coward. I
suppose that if I had to use it I would do the engineering I
suggested, even finding a way to do the vib testing. I have a
background in structural dynamics and structural analysis, enough to
know I could never verify the integrity of your spacer without some
vibration testing. Do not be put off, however, as such testing is
possible today even at a "hobby" level. (I'll bet Lowell could do it,
with a little help.) Remember that all you're trying to do is verify
that your system response is no worse with the spacer. Thus you don't
need accuracy, merely precision, which is a lot easier.
Our usual method when designing something like this, where we had a
lot of unknowns, was to make the addition as system independent as
possible. In the case of this spacer it would mean trying to make it
dramatically stiffer and somewhat stronger than the output shaft. You
could use a large diameter steel weldment with some clean-up
machining, or if you wanted to double the price of your Kolb, use
titanium. Even the aluminum piece could have been designed a lot
stiffer and stronger by making it maximum diameter and hollow. It
wouldn't be as easy to machine, nor as easy to install, though.
I wish I could offer you more. I really hate to question something,
to degrade your flying enjoyment, to "piss in your Cheerios" as the
Aussies like to say. Please contact the designer. Hopefully they will
be able to set your mind to rest and keep you care-free in the air.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV/1200 w/ 582 C-box & Warp 3 blade
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: | Kitfox III - New Builder - Need Help |
The owners of Kitfox LLC. are members of this group. Keep reading the
mail
no doubt a reply form John Mc Bean will show up soon..... I think it's
fair to say if he doesn't have it, you won't need it.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
Harrison
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:20 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox III - New Builder - Need Help
Hello all,
I have purchased a Kitfox Model III unfinished, and am wondering if
there
is any possibility of finding a complete builders manual anywhere. I
have
bits and pieces, but I'm concerned I'll miss something very important.
Also, I am in need of a few items for the kit and would appreciate any
help. If any of you have any of these for sale please let me know.
1. I basically need an entire 582 firewall forward package for the
Model III.
2. Of course if I can't find an entire package, I'll need an
engine
mount for starters. Is that something that is still being fabricated,
or
will I have to find a used one?
3. "Bumps" engine cowling for Model III.
4. Header tank.
5. Firewall. If I can't find one, is it possible to obtain the
dimensions of all those parts that go into the firewall so I can
fabricate
it?
6. Throttle assembly parts to convert verner throttle motion to
the
Rotax cable motion. My frame has the tangs but I don't have those
parts.
7. Can you tell me the AN designation, or where to obtain the
isolation mounts that hold the instrument panel. My assembly manual
assumes
you have the parts from the kit and does not list what they are.
8. Also, I see lots of parts out there for the Model IV. Can
anyone
tell me if the engine mount holes on the fuselage are the same for the
III
and IV. Is the cowling the same for III and IV?
Thanks so much for any help and I look forward to the build.
Ken Harrison
Kitfox III Rotax 582 75% Done
Lancaster, SC
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 |
|
We seemed to have had an issue with emailing to the list although we are
receiving the emails just fine Hope fully this issue is resolved. I had
asked Neal to forward the Holiday wishes. We hope that everyone had a GREAT
Christmas and will have a SAFE New Year !
Hope this one makes it to the list.
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
208.337.5111
www.kitfoxaircraft.com
"It's not how Fast... It's how Fun!"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
nealscherm@comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 9:47 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: FW: Kitfox List
Merry Christmas to the Kitfox Family and Friends !!
The New Year is going to be very exciting !!
John & Debra McBean
Kitfox Aircraft
--
12:23 PM
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: | Kitfox III - New Builder - Need Help |
Ken,
We can help you. Give us a shout
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
208.337.5111
www.kitfoxaircraft.com
"It's not how Fast... It's how Fun!"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ken Harrison
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:50 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox III - New Builder - Need Help
Hello all,
I have purchased a Kitfox Model III unfinished, and am wondering if there
is any possibility of finding a complete builders manual anywhere. I have
bits and pieces, but Im concerned Ill miss something very important.
Also, I am in need of a few items for the kit and would appreciate any
help. If any of you have any of these for sale please let me know.
1. I basically need an entire 582 firewall forward package for the
Model III.
2. Of course if I cant find an entire package, Ill need an engine
mount for starters. Is that something that is still being fabricated, or
will I have to find a used one?
3. Bumps engine cowling for Model III.
4. Header tank.
5. Firewall. If I cant find one, is it possible to obtain the
dimensions of all those parts that go into the firewall so I can fabricate
it?
6. Throttle assembly parts to convert verner throttle motion to the
Rotax cable motion. My frame has the tangs but I dont have those parts.
7. Can you tell me the AN designation, or where to obtain the
isolation mounts that hold the instrument panel. My assembly manual assumes
you have the parts from the kit and does not list what they are.
8. Also, I see lots of parts out there for the Model IV. Can anyone
tell me if the engine mount holes on the fuselage are the same for the III
and IV. Is the cowling the same for III and IV?
Thanks so much for any help and I look forward to the build.
Ken Harrison
Kitfox III Rotax 582 75% Done
Lancaster, SC
--
12:23 PM
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: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one |
like this
You've probably already done so, but if not, I suggest you contact B & B
Sport Aviation in Cambridge, Maryland. They're dealers for the Kiev prop,
and should be able to help you.
Clem Nichols
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:31 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one
like this
>
> Thanks for the response Guy,
>
> The spacer is very close to the same size as the 912-S Gearbox output
> shaft, but the sapcer is aluminum, and the shaft is hardened steel, so im
> sure that the spacer is the weak point in the system.
>
> What mkes it even worse, unlike a Kitfox, on my pusher Kolb the prop will
> fly into my wing if the spacer breaks, most likely rendering it
> uncontrollable as the aileron actuator tubes are on the trailing edge of
> the wing. If I'm really having a bad day, the rotating prop might even
> cut my tail boom in half which is a couple inches below :x
>
> The good news is that the Kiev prop is much lighter than the Warp Drive
> props are. Kiev Props are well within Rotax Specs for rotational mass on
> the output shaft. You seem to know a lot about this, I think the
> material is milled billet, but I am not sure. It was expensive....
> Bottom line, given what you know about materials, would you fly this, or
> test fly it ? If it lets go, its much more than an engine out, It would
> surely create an opportunity to test my BRS !
>
> JettPilot
>
> --------
> "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you
> could have !!!
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83569#83569
>
>
>
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: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one |
like this
Oops. B & B's telephone number is 410-221-8009. You can google their web
site.
Clem Nichols
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:31 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one
like this
>
> Thanks for the response Guy,
>
> The spacer is very close to the same size as the 912-S Gearbox output
> shaft, but the sapcer is aluminum, and the shaft is hardened steel, so im
> sure that the spacer is the weak point in the system.
>
> What mkes it even worse, unlike a Kitfox, on my pusher Kolb the prop will
> fly into my wing if the spacer breaks, most likely rendering it
> uncontrollable as the aileron actuator tubes are on the trailing edge of
> the wing. If I'm really having a bad day, the rotating prop might even
> cut my tail boom in half which is a couple inches below :x
>
> The good news is that the Kiev prop is much lighter than the Warp Drive
> props are. Kiev Props are well within Rotax Specs for rotational mass on
> the output shaft. You seem to know a lot about this, I think the
> material is milled billet, but I am not sure. It was expensive....
> Bottom line, given what you know about materials, would you fly this, or
> test fly it ? If it lets go, its much more than an engine out, It would
> surely create an opportunity to test my BRS !
>
> JettPilot
>
> --------
> "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you
> could have !!!
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83569#83569
>
>
>
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: Older Kitfox cruise speeds (and a new challenge for Michel's |
simulator)
Michel,
Well, I'm not sure about how two universes might stack up against eachother
in regards to Kitfox cruise speeds (??), but to answer the question with
accurate historical accuracy, it wouldn't matter. Thats's because Dean
Wilson had already designed the wing incidence into the Avid Flyer, which is
what was used on the first Fox. Not to rain on your parade, but that is
really the long story short.
Man, we really need to find a challenge for you with that flight
simulator/computer program you are playing with. I'll bet there's just
something out there that could help our group out with some question we've
been struggling with.
Here's a couple I have;
- How would cruise speed be affected by various landing gears (bungee or
spring) and tire sizes (and what the heck, see what it says about wheel
pants)?
- What impact would lengthening the wing another 2 feet have, as well as
shortening it to say 26-27 feet?
- What impact does moving the engine thrust line up 4-6 inches and/or left
or right a few degrees (along with the vertical fin) have on the flight
characteristics?
- Compare performance between the round cowl against the streamline cowl
- Compare a unfaired belly radiator against one with the speedster stlye
scoop cleaing it up
- Compare an 80 inch 2 blade prop vs a 3 blade 68 inch using an 80 hp engine
This should keep you off the eggnog for awhile..... :-)
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Older Kitfox cruise speeds
>
> On Dec 23, 2006, at 3:05 AM, Paul Seehafer wrote:
>> By getting the wing incidence out of wack it makes the tail have to
>> compensate, and adds further drag.
>
> Yes, Paul, I understand that and while I will always take a simulator with
> a grain of salt, mine does a pretty good job at modelling things like
> that. I am always amazed to see how changing one degree in the AoA of the
> horizontal stab, or moving the CoG a couple of inches, changes entirely
> the flight model, stall, etc.
>
> I am not contesting the Kitfox article, nor the Piper engineers, I merely
> try to understand how this works because if I learn something today, then
> it is a good day.
>
> Here is an hypothesis: The day Mr Denney sat and drew the first Kitfox, as
> he made the line that would define the AoA of the wing, a fly came to rest
> on his pencil. In a quantum of time, two different universes came to
> exist: One where he drew the intended line, as it as now; and another one
> where he was distracted by the fly and his ruler slid slightly down thus
> making a line with a lesser AoA.
>
> In both universes, now moving in their own individual existence, it
> resulted in a constructed plane. In the first one, Mr Denney - after the
> first test flight - realises that to keep a proper balance, the horizontal
> stab has to be modified to keep the nose slightly up. In the other
> universe, he decides - for the same reason - that it has to be modified to
> keep the nose slightly down.
>
> The question then is: Will the Kitfox in one universe - with the same
> engine, etc. - fly slower than the Kitfox in the other universe?
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
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: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like |
this
Hi Guy,
I need the information weather it is what I want to hear or not, im glad you are
just telling it like it is. If you look at the attached picture, you can
barely see the output shaft of the Rotax, it is slightly thicker than my spacer
at its smallest point... Then you can see the spacer, which tapers down to
a mere 2 inches [Evil or Very Mad]
That taper is what worries me, if they were to have left the spacer diameter thicker,
and cut indentations for the bolts, it would be a lot stronger... I
just cant see any way that 2 inches of aluminum will be anywhere near as strong
as the 2.25 or so inches of the Steel shaft from the engine.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83611#83611
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ultralightmikekolbdetail12_20_2006_115_112.jpg
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: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like |
this
Thanks, I tried to call them, but no luck, they must still be out for the holidays.
I also found their website, but no information there.
http://www.bbsportaviation.com/
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83613#83613
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: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one |
like this
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
I just cant see any way that 2 inches of aluminum will be anywhere near as
strong as the 2.25 or so inches of the Steel shaft from the engine.
>
> Mike
Mike the shaft from the output of the gearbox is a hollow steel tube roughly
1" in diameter. Even the output from an O-200 is not 2.25" of solid steel.
As for the extension, I've seen a similar one on a Kolb using an 80 HP 912.
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: | Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one |
like this
At 11:05 AM 12/26/2006, you wrote:
>That taper is what worries me, if they were to have left the spacer
>diameter thicker, and cut indentations for the bolts, it would be a
>lot stronger... I just cant see any way that 2 inches of aluminum
>will be anywhere near as strong as the 2.25 or so inches of the
>Steel shaft from the engine.
Doing a little checking I found crank steel strength might run from
80 - 130 ksi. The strongest aluminum you're spacer would be made from
is 7075, which in T6 temper is about 83 ksi. 7075 is also susceptible
to stress corrosion cracking. (I found a fatigue strength of 27 ksi
for 7075-T6.)
Guy Buchanan
K-IV/1200 w/ 582 C-box & Warp 3 blade
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: Older Kitfox cruise speeds (and a new challenge for Michel's |
simulator)
Hello Paul,
On Dec 26, 2006, at 8:00 PM, Paul Seehafer wrote:
> Thats's because Dean Wilson had already designed the wing incidence
> into the Avid Flyer, which is what was used on the first Fox.
It looks like once again, I am the victim of my own creative authoring.
Forget about the parallel universe and even forget about the Kitfox.
Rex wrote me privately the following: Usually our ultralight aircraft
have a wing AoA of 4 degrees, and a horizontal stabiliser AoA of 2
degrees. The difference of which is 4 - 2 = 2 degrees. My question then
is: Would a wing AoA of 5 and a stab AoA of 3 (5 - 3 = 2) make a
difference in the aircraft performance? My argument being: those angles
are relative to a reference line that is somewhat arbitrary, often
going from the prop axis to the aft end of the fuselage.
> Man, we really need to find a challenge for you with that flight
> simulator/computer program you are playing with.
There are many PC-based flight simulators on the market, Paul. I don't
know which one is the best but I know that X-Plane, the one that I use,
is based on the "blade theory." It brakes down any craft into a series
of airfoils each with its coefficient of lift, drag and moment. However
there are serious limitations. Here are a few:
1) While you can make your own airfoil, the simulator comes with a
library of common NACA airfoils. Unfortunately, those were tested in
wind tunnels only to -20 to +20 AoA because nearly all of them will
stall at a greater angle. But in e.g. a spin, the airflow comes a
angles much greater than that, and the value of those coefficients have
to be guestimated.
2) The drag of non-airfoils, such as wheels and fuselage, is
calculated from their frontal surface and therefore the drag of e.g. a
round cowl vs. streamline cowl cannot be evaluated. To do that, you
would need what is called Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) which
means, a modelling of air molecules as they pass by an object. And that
can't be done on a PC in real-time. Remember that a real-time simulator
needs more than ten cycles per second for the model to respond to
input. This is also the reason why no real-time simulators can simulate
spins because when it happens, angles of incidence are so great that
some surfaces as the tail, are in the "shadow" of other surface and
only CFD can show that.
3) Available data on airfoils, engines, etc. are optimal because
"clean." In real life, an airfoil is never perfect, an engine doesn't
deliver the optimal power and a propeller has some dead bugs on its
leading edge. While I did the best I could to model the Avid wing of my
model 3, I came up with unrealistic results. I had measured my wing
above and under, at each 10 cm, gave the data to a friend who has some
of the best virtual wind tunnel, and the result was a plane that flew
too fast and stall too slow. That is because reality is never as
perfect as a virtual model.
As a final note: In 1979, I bought my first computer to help me to
design yachts. Then I attended a conference in Brighton, UK, where I
was shown how model tank testing data could be used in computers to
design full scale yachts. Testing showed that full scale vessels were
within 20% of the computed data. ... 20%? Was it worth it? While
computers have increased many tenfolds in speed and capacity, I still
wouldn't trust them too much for real-life modelling. I think few
people have worked, as I have done, to test a real plane and model it
in a simulator. Usually, real-life pilots can't be bothered to play
with those "video games." But I do, by curiosity. And if moving weight
or AoA in a simulator like X-Plane doesn't really correspond 100% to
reality, it sure gives a feeling of how the forces involved in aviation
work. For example, my X-Plane Kitfox mushes down pretty much like the
real one. I don't know any other X-Plane aircraft doing that. Probably
because designers are often more interested to show a nice livery than
a close-to-reality aerodynamic model. Eye candy is important, you know.
Just look at how much women spend on cosmetics! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Older Kitfox cruise speeds (and a new challenge for Michel's |
simulator)
And to think, folks, he does it all on a Mac! : ) go Michel!....
Lynn
do not archive
On Dec 26, 2006, at 4:10 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
>
> Hello Paul,
>
> On Dec 26, 2006, at 8:00 PM, Paul Seehafer wrote:
>> Thats's because Dean Wilson had already designed the wing
>> incidence into the Avid Flyer, which is what was used on the first
>> Fox.
>
> It looks like once again, I am the victim of my own creative
> authoring. Forget about the parallel universe and even forget about
> the Kitfox. Rex wrote me privately the following: Usually our
> ultralight aircraft have a wing AoA of 4 degrees, and a horizontal
> stabiliser AoA of 2 degrees. The difference of which is 4 - 2 = 2
> degrees. My question then is: Would a wing AoA of 5 and a stab AoA
> of 3 (5 - 3 = 2) make a difference in the aircraft performance? My
> argument being: those angles are relative to a reference line that
> is somewhat arbitrary, often going from the prop axis to the aft
> end of the fuselage.
>
>> Man, we really need to find a challenge for you with that flight
>> simulator/computer program you are playing with.
>
> There are many PC-based flight simulators on the market, Paul. I
> don't know which one is the best but I know that X-Plane, the one
> that I use, is based on the "blade theory." It brakes down any
> craft into a series of airfoils each with its coefficient of lift,
> drag and moment. However there are serious limitations. Here are a
> few:
>
> 1) While you can make your own airfoil, the simulator comes with a
> library of common NACA airfoils. Unfortunately, those were tested
> in wind tunnels only to -20 to +20 AoA because nearly all of them
> will stall at a greater angle. But in e.g. a spin, the airflow
> comes a angles much greater than that, and the value of those
> coefficients have to be guestimated.
> 2) The drag of non-airfoils, such as wheels and fuselage, is
> calculated from their frontal surface and therefore the drag of
> e.g. a round cowl vs. streamline cowl cannot be evaluated. To do
> that, you would need what is called Computational Fluid Dynamics
> (CFD) which means, a modelling of air molecules as they pass by an
> object. And that can't be done on a PC in real-time. Remember that
> a real-time simulator needs more than ten cycles per second for the
> model to respond to input. This is also the reason why no real-time
> simulators can simulate spins because when it happens, angles of
> incidence are so great that some surfaces as the tail, are in the
> "shadow" of other surface and only CFD can show that.
> 3) Available data on airfoils, engines, etc. are optimal because
> "clean." In real life, an airfoil is never perfect, an engine
> doesn't deliver the optimal power and a propeller has some dead
> bugs on its leading edge. While I did the best I could to model the
> Avid wing of my model 3, I came up with unrealistic results. I had
> measured my wing above and under, at each 10 cm, gave the data to a
> friend who has some of the best virtual wind tunnel, and the result
> was a plane that flew too fast and stall too slow. That is because
> reality is never as perfect as a virtual model.
>
> As a final note: In 1979, I bought my first computer to help me to
> design yachts. Then I attended a conference in Brighton, UK, where
> I was shown how model tank testing data could be used in computers
> to design full scale yachts. Testing showed that full scale vessels
> were within 20% of the computed data. ... 20%? Was it worth it?
> While computers have increased many tenfolds in speed and capacity,
> I still wouldn't trust them too much for real-life modelling. I
> think few people have worked, as I have done, to test a real plane
> and model it in a simulator. Usually, real-life pilots can't be
> bothered to play with those "video games." But I do, by curiosity.
> And if moving weight or AoA in a simulator like X-Plane doesn't
> really correspond 100% to reality, it sure gives a feeling of how
> the forces involved in aviation work. For example, my X-Plane
> Kitfox mushes down pretty much like the real one. I don't know any
> other X-Plane aircraft doing that. Probably because designers are
> often more interested to show a nice livery than a close-to-reality
> aerodynamic model. Eye candy is important, you know. Just look at
> how much women spend on cosmetics! :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Older Kitfox cruise speeds (and a new challenge for Michel's |
simulator)
Michel,
Since we are off dreaming....
When aircraft are designed, they are usually initially
layed out to be most efficient at a given cruise speed
and weight. That means all parts are meant to be at
their best when at that speed. The fuselage is
aligned to the wind for least drag. The wing is then
either given a zero incidence with an airfoil that
will give 1 G lift at that speed, or placed at an
incidence that gives 1 G lift, if the wing is designed
to other special needs, like STOL flight.
The tail is then set to give stability and counter the
pitching moment of the wing. It must then be modified
to account for landing and takeoff requirements.
>From this point, the design is modified to achieve the
other goals of the design. Say a wider cruise range,
slower takeoff and landing speeds, more useful loads,
etc. Flaps are added to help with the bottom end
speeds. Incidence or wing span may be changed to help
too, compromising top speeds. Everything is adjusted
away from perfect at one speed, to acceptable for all
design goals. And the tail must be modified to deal
with it.
Sounds like prop design problems too....
When we start with a KF I and then grow it to much
greater weights and faster cruise speeds, the
origional design no longer fits so well. The faster
speed will necesitate the fuselage and wing being
pitched nose down below the best drag profile. The
greater weights mean higher stall speeds and longer
T/O and landing distances. Simply changing the
airfoil can give a new compromise in performance, but
eventually nothing fits efficiently.
Making major changes means new tooling and new parts
that don't fit the earlier series. Bigger inventory.
My guess is that the I-III Fox's were similar, but had
to be modified to the IV's weight and speeds. Then
the -5 and on needed major changes to deal with a
larger aircraft, more weight and even higher speeds.
But we builders don't leave it alone as designed.
Different engines, the quest for more speed, etc make
us fly outside of the angles that the planes parts
were origionally set for. (Not to mention a little
over weight?)
So there we are with the nose tucked down because the
high lift wing is flying faster than its origional AOA
and incidence were designed for. The fuselage is more
draggy to lower the wing's AOA at the designed
incidence. The wing uses the wrong airfoil for that
speed, so it is more draggy too. The tail has to trim
to a draggier profile to accomidate the fuselage
angle, weight changes, higher speeds, etc.
Or we could reflex the flapperons up and take some
lift off the wing.... That changes the pitching
moment though (tail), but may align the fuselage and
wing to a less draggy profile. Quick fix?
Or change the wing and tail incidence? Now that needs
complete testing for stall and spin characteristics
too. And what did we do to the CG envelope?
I think we are beyond X-Plane for giving the answers
to these questions as you said Michel. And changing
wing incidence on our own means some good testing
needs to be done.
What we can do is move the battery to give a little
better CG taking the load off or adding it on to the
tail to avoid trim drag there, or reflex the
flapperons to increase the cruise without modifying
parts.
Since the lower flapperon deflections can lead to
trouble anyway, maybe setting full up handle
deflection to the most allowable flapperon down angle,
then testing the plane for best reflex angle, handle
down, might be a useful way to find some more speed
for the I-III series?
Just some thoughts...
Kurt S. S-5
--- Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
> Hello Paul,
>
> On Dec 26, 2006, at 8:00 PM, Paul Seehafer wrote:
> > Thats's because Dean Wilson had already designed
> the wing incidence
> > into the Avid Flyer, which is what was used on the
> first Fox.
>
> It looks like once again, I am the victim of my own
> creative authoring.
> Forget about the parallel universe and even forget
> about the Kitfox.
> Rex wrote me privately the following: Usually our
> ultralight aircraft
> have a wing AoA of 4 degrees, and a horizontal
> stabiliser AoA of 2
> degrees. The difference of which is 4 - 2 = 2
> degrees. My question then
> is: Would a wing AoA of 5 and a stab AoA of 3 (5 - 3
> = 2) make a
> difference in the aircraft performance?
__________________________________________________
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Santa was kind to me and I found a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator X in my stocking.
Does anyone have the Kitfox modeled for this sim?
Flying the de Havilland Beaver from Kenmore to Lake Cushman was a hoot!
--------
Joel Mapes Kitfox 5 912 ULS Aerocomp amphibs
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83659#83659
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Older Kitfox cruise speeds (and a new challenge for Michel's |
simulator)
When I was training I used the MS Flight Sim to practice procedures and to
navigate within a hundred miles of the flight school. Practice a procedure
( forced approach or diversion ) on the Flight Sim in the night and it made
doing it in the real world a lot easier. The only thing I found harder in
the real world was the smooth landing. I had to train myself not to fixate
on the ASI after turning on final.
Mind you the virtual world is only similar in geography to the real world
but that just adds interest.
I also have a couple of kitfoxes which I adjusted to fly more like the real
thing. I don't know if they will fly on your X-Plane. Do you have a 'Fox
on floats that may work on the MSFS??
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Michel Verheughe
> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 5:41 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Older Kitfox cruise speeds (and a
> new challenge for Michel's simulator)
>
>
>
> Hello Paul,
>
> On Dec 26, 2006, at 8:00 PM, Paul Seehafer wrote:
> > Thats's because Dean Wilson had already designed the wing incidence
> > into the Avid Flyer, which is what was used on the first Fox.
>
> It looks like once again, I am the victim of my own creative
> authoring.
> Forget about the parallel universe and even forget about the Kitfox.
> Rex wrote me privately the following: Usually our ultralight aircraft
> have a wing AoA of 4 degrees, and a horizontal stabiliser AoA of 2
> degrees. The difference of which is 4 - 2 = 2 degrees. My
> question then
> is: Would a wing AoA of 5 and a stab AoA of 3 (5 - 3 = 2) make a
> difference in the aircraft performance? My argument being:
> those angles
> are relative to a reference line that is somewhat arbitrary, often
> going from the prop axis to the aft end of the fuselage.
>
> > Man, we really need to find a challenge for you with that flight
> > simulator/computer program you are playing with.
>
> There are many PC-based flight simulators on the market,
> Paul. I don't
> know which one is the best but I know that X-Plane, the one
> that I use,
> is based on the "blade theory." It brakes down any craft into
> a series
> of airfoils each with its coefficient of lift, drag and
> moment. However
> there are serious limitations. Here are a few:
>
> 1) While you can make your own airfoil, the simulator comes with a
> library of common NACA airfoils. Unfortunately, those were tested in
> wind tunnels only to -20 to +20 AoA because nearly all of them will
> stall at a greater angle. But in e.g. a spin, the airflow comes a
> angles much greater than that, and the value of those
> coefficients have
> to be guestimated.
> 2) The drag of non-airfoils, such as wheels and fuselage, is
> calculated from their frontal surface and therefore the drag
> of e.g. a
> round cowl vs. streamline cowl cannot be evaluated. To do that, you
> would need what is called Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) which
> means, a modelling of air molecules as they pass by an
> object. And that
> can't be done on a PC in real-time. Remember that a real-time
> simulator
> needs more than ten cycles per second for the model to respond to
> input. This is also the reason why no real-time simulators
> can simulate
> spins because when it happens, angles of incidence are so great that
> some surfaces as the tail, are in the "shadow" of other surface and
> only CFD can show that.
> 3) Available data on airfoils, engines, etc. are optimal because
> "clean." In real life, an airfoil is never perfect, an engine doesn't
> deliver the optimal power and a propeller has some dead bugs on its
> leading edge. While I did the best I could to model the Avid
> wing of my
> model 3, I came up with unrealistic results. I had measured my wing
> above and under, at each 10 cm, gave the data to a friend who
> has some
> of the best virtual wind tunnel, and the result was a plane that flew
> too fast and stall too slow. That is because reality is never as
> perfect as a virtual model.
>
> As a final note: In 1979, I bought my first computer to help me to
> design yachts. Then I attended a conference in Brighton, UK, where I
> was shown how model tank testing data could be used in computers to
> design full scale yachts. Testing showed that full scale vessels were
> within 20% of the computed data. ... 20%? Was it worth it? While
> computers have increased many tenfolds in speed and capacity, I still
> wouldn't trust them too much for real-life modelling. I think few
> people have worked, as I have done, to test a real plane and model it
> in a simulator. Usually, real-life pilots can't be bothered to play
> with those "video games." But I do, by curiosity. And if
> moving weight
> or AoA in a simulator like X-Plane doesn't really correspond 100% to
> reality, it sure gives a feeling of how the forces involved
> in aviation
> work. For example, my X-Plane Kitfox mushes down pretty much like the
> real one. I don't know any other X-Plane aircraft doing that.
> Probably
> because designers are often more interested to show a nice
> livery than
> a close-to-reality aerodynamic model. Eye candy is important,
> you know.
> Just look at how much women spend on cosmetics! :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Difference between the model II and model III. |
Hi Folks,
I've lately been off list, but I've been reading the list frequently
(without being a member) from the outside.
Well, some time ago there was a topics about the difference between a
model II and a model III. Ok., back in 91 a Kitfox owner from Bern
(capital of Switzerland), made an upgrade calculation of a model II so
it's max take off weight increased a 100 Lbs. I.E. New MTOW changed to
1050 Lbs. This was approved by the Swiss CAA I'll think.
The name of this builder was; R.Meier.
The file attached (a pdf) is only 89Kb, and contain the project. It is the
upgrade of an Avid Flyer/ A.F. Hauler that's the base for the Kitfox
upgrade, I'll think.
Got this info from "the other Kitfox list"
(Kitfox-Builders@RSA-Suisse.org), that existed (1999-2001) I'll think.
Kurt is webmaster for this site (who hosted the Kitfox-Builders):
http://www.experimental.ch/EAS/whoiswho/webmaster.htm
Kurts E-mail is here: Kurt.Schumacher@schumi.ch
Kurt used to be on this list, some time ago.
For those interested I'll think he has more adequate info about this
topics.
Torgeir.
Here's the dok., hopfully I'll do not attatch a picture this time :) :
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Difference between the model II and model III. |
Torgier
I would like to extend my humble gratitude for your work on this . I have a
model 2 and all the info is great .
Thanks
Fly safe fly low fly slow fly fun fly kitfox or that other plane BRO
[akflyer] avid lol
John Perry
Kitfox 2 N718PD
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flight Sim X |
The short answer to your inquiry as to whether there is a kitfox for MS FSX:
No.
Six years ago there were several Kifoxes in the www.flightsim.com archives
for FS2000, but they were uniformly awful recreations; just crude, clunky
visual models attached to the flight dynamics of a Cessna or something. Back
then the closest thing I found to a Kitfox was the Canadian Canuck
bushplane, a fabulous freeware plane for FS2002 that handily mirrored the
Kitfox in almost every way. And you got a floatplane besides.
It is still available at the above website, but only for FS2002.
I seriously doubt whether we will see it or any kind of Kitfox for FSX. The
author of the Canuck has since moved on to designing planes for payware and
with his talent he cannot be blamed, and an accurate model of the Kitfox
would take a lot of time and would no doubt not be profitable in the
Flightsim world.
But I would be glad should I be proven wrong. FSX, like all previous MS
flightsims, is a fabulous product.
Robert Beck
Do not archive
> Santa was kind to me and I found a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator X in
> my stocking. Does anyone have the Kitfox modeled for this sim?
> Flying the de Havilland Beaver from Kenmore to Lake Cushman was a hoot!
>
> --------
> Joel Mapes Kitfox 5 912 ULS Aerocomp amphibs
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83659#83659
>
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Santa must have had a few of those in stock as I received one to. I have
yet to play yet as I don't have a DVD drive installed yet. I hope to have
it in by the weekend. From what it have heard, there is no plans for a
kitfox that I could find on the web. But who knows this time next year
somebody might get around to it. Are the graphics as good as they say?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Joel
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 6:32 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Flight Sim X
Santa was kind to me and I found a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator X in
my stocking. Does anyone have the Kitfox modeled for this sim?
Flying the de Havilland Beaver from Kenmore to Lake Cushman was a hoot!
--------
Joel Mapes Kitfox 5 912 ULS Aerocomp amphibs
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83659#83659
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Difference between the model II and model III. |
I know where I'll be first light tomorrow..... Out in the garage with the
callipers :-)
Thanks Torgeir I think I can put this info to use.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Torgeir Mortensen
> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 11:19 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Difference between the model II and model III.
>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> I've lately been off list, but I've been reading the list frequently
> (without being a member) from the outside.
>
> Well, some time ago there was a topics about the difference
> between a
> model II and a model III. Ok., back in 91 a Kitfox owner from Bern
> (capital of Switzerland), made an upgrade calculation of a
> model II so
> it's max take off weight increased a 100 Lbs. I.E. New MTOW
> changed to
> 1050 Lbs. This was approved by the Swiss CAA I'll think.
>
> The name of this builder was; R.Meier.
>
> The file attached (a pdf) is only 89Kb, and contain the
> project. It is the
> upgrade of an Avid Flyer/ A.F. Hauler that's the base for the Kitfox
> upgrade, I'll think.
>
> Got this info from "the other Kitfox list"
> (Kitfox-Builders@RSA-Suisse.org), that existed (1999-2001) I'll think.
>
> Kurt is webmaster for this site (who hosted the Kitfox-Builders):
>
> http://www.experimental.ch/EAS/whoiswho/webmaster.htm
>
> Kurt's E-mail is here: Kurt.Schumacher@schumi.ch
>
> Kurt used to be on this list, some time ago.
>
> For those interested I'll think he has more adequate info about this
> topics.
>
>
> Torgeir.
>
> Here's the dok., hopfully I'll do not attatch a picture this time :) :
>
>
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flight Sim X |
Hi Team. There is a Kit Fox for FS9 on www.flightsim.com it's OK but I'v
sim'ed better!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "W & R Beck" <trevorkebb@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Flight Sim X
>
> The short answer to your inquiry as to whether there is a kitfox for MS
> FSX: No.
>
> Six years ago there were several Kifoxes in the www.flightsim.com archives
> for FS2000, but they were uniformly awful recreations; just crude, clunky
> visual models attached to the flight dynamics of a Cessna or something.
> Back then the closest thing I found to a Kitfox was the Canadian Canuck
> bushplane, a fabulous freeware plane for FS2002 that handily mirrored the
> Kitfox in almost every way. And you got a floatplane besides.
>
> It is still available at the above website, but only for FS2002.
>
> I seriously doubt whether we will see it or any kind of Kitfox for FSX.
> The author of the Canuck has since moved on to designing planes for
> payware and with his talent he cannot be blamed, and an accurate model of
> the Kitfox would take a lot of time and would no doubt not be profitable
> in the Flightsim world.
>
> But I would be glad should I be proven wrong. FSX, like all previous MS
> flightsims, is a fabulous product.
>
> Robert Beck
>
> Do not archive
>
>
>> Santa was kind to me and I found a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator X
>> in my stocking. Does anyone have the Kitfox modeled for this sim?
>> Flying the de Havilland Beaver from Kenmore to Lake Cushman was a hoot!
>>
>> --------
>> Joel Mapes Kitfox 5 912 ULS Aerocomp amphibs
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83659#83659
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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! --
|