Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:03 AM - Re: Kitfox III - New Builder - Need Help (n61kf)
2. 05:24 AM - Re: Older Kitfox cruise speeds (Michel Verheughe)
3. 06:05 AM - Rudder Control Cable (Dan Billingsley)
4. 06:23 AM - Re: Older Kitfox cruise speeds (mscotter)
5. 06:33 AM - Re: Flight Sim X (Noel Loveys)
6. 06:37 AM - Re: Flight Sim X (Noel Loveys)
7. 07:15 AM - Re: Rudder Control Cable (Richard Rabbers)
8. 07:29 AM - Re: Rudder Control Cable (Lynn Matteson)
9. 08:28 AM - First (Four) Flights!! (Tinne maha)
10. 08:40 AM - Re: Difference between the model II and model III. (Rexinator)
11. 09:58 AM - Re: First (Four) Flights!! (Fox5flyer)
12. 10:55 AM - Re: First (Four) Flights!! (Noel Loveys)
13. 11:16 AM - Re: First (Four) Flights!! (dave)
14. 12:18 PM - Re: Older Kitfox cruise speeds (Michel Verheughe)
15. 04:42 PM - Re: Rudder Control Cable (Dan Billingsley)
16. 05:39 PM - Re: Older Kitfox cruise speeds (Lynn Matteson)
17. 05:48 PM - More speeds: Older Kitfox cruise speeds (dave)
18. 05:52 PM - Speed required to air start (dave)
19. 05:56 PM - Model 2 to 3 upgrade - Denney Aerocraft Owners Newsletter. (dave)
20. 06:48 PM - less than 100 foot take off ... cool (Aerobatics@aol.com)
21. 07:41 PM - Re: less than 100 foot take off ... cool (kirk hull)
22. 09:20 PM - Re: More speeds: Older Kitfox cruise speeds (Lynn Matteson)
23. 10:10 PM - Re: less than 100 foot take off ... cool (Aerobatics@aol.com)
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: | Re: Kitfox III - New Builder - Need Help |
Ken, I may have everything you need. I have a damaged Model III, which I bought
for parts to complete a Model IV, but have found I just dont have the time. I
have the complete FWF, with a 582 with 3 hours since complete rebuild by LEAF,
plus lots of other stuff. I plan to sell both, and will sell seperate. I also
have the Model III builders manual. I am located in southern Ohio. Please e-mail
or call for more info. Thanks
Keith Schneider
bkls1@earthlink.net
513-897-4311
--------
Keith
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83719#83719
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: | Older Kitfox cruise speeds |
> From: kurt schrader [smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com]
> When aircraft are designed, they are usually initially
> layed out to be most efficient at a given cruise speed
> and weight.
Thank you for this comprehensive explanation of all the challenges an aircraft
designer meets, Kurt. It is, indeed, always a compromise. Maybe I misunderstood
the article that Paul published for us on the list. I think I understood that
if the models 1 to 3 were designed with a lesser wing AoA, the would fly faster
but loose STOL capacity. I am sorry, I still don't understand.
Yes, the shape of every object in the airflow will contribute to more or less parasite
drag. Yes it could be that the fuselage, being at a more nose-down attitude
when the wings have a greater AoA, has a greater drag. But the author of
the article doesn't know that, does he?
Likewise, I don't understand how a greater wing AoA increases STOL capacity. I
have been told that there isn't such a thing as a stall speed, only a stall AoA.
STOL means that you can land slower, right? Will the wing AoA make it stall
at a greater AoA? I don't understand. I will make the fuselage more nose-up when
stalling on landing. It can make your 3-points landing with a tailwheel touching
first. But so can gap-sealing elevators, your CoG, your wheels' diameter,
etc.
I am sorry, I don't get it and if I am the only one on the list not to get it so
let it be. Maybe I am slow and in a few months I'll wake up in the middle of
the night and shout: EUREKA! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: | Rudder Control Cable |
I have decided to change up my rudder control cables on my IV. It currently has
a 3/32" cable with the stock connecting ends...I'm switching over to turnbuckels.
My question turns out to be which cable style is best to use? As I was looking
at Spruce, they display differences in strandings... 7x7, 7x19 and a 1x19.
Does anyone know what Kitfox uses? Are there advantages / disadvantages to
moving to 1/8". Not sure here.
Thanks, Dan
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: | Older Kitfox cruise speeds |
Michel, I'll chime in for a moment and share my understanding of this, which
I **believe** to be correct from what I've read.
I think what was said was that the wing incidence was increased to give
better visibility over the nose. In other words, the wing incidence was
increased so that at any given time the fuselage would be flying at a lower
angle of incidence, hence allowing the nose to be lower and us to see over
it better.
As for wing Angle of Attack/Incidence and its relation to STOL capability, I
think what is being said is that since the earlier models had the wing
mounted at a greater angle of incidence on the fuselage then those aircraft
would, upon taking off, be at a greater angle of attack sooner (with respect
to the later model kitfox) and thus be developing lift and flying sooner.
Personally, I'd bet that you'd be hard pressed to measure the difference in
two otherwise comparably equipped aircraft, as these airplanes get off the
ground so quick already. But I digress...
Mark Scott
Elkton, MD USA
Merry Christmas to all
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michel
Verheughe
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 8:24 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Older Kitfox cruise speeds
> From: kurt schrader [smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com]
> When aircraft are designed, they are usually initially
> layed out to be most efficient at a given cruise speed
> and weight.
Thank you for this comprehensive explanation of all the challenges an
aircraft designer meets, Kurt. It is, indeed, always a compromise. Maybe I
misunderstood the article that Paul published for us on the list. I think I
understood that if the models 1 to 3 were designed with a lesser wing AoA,
the would fly faster but loose STOL capacity. I am sorry, I still don't
understand.
Yes, the shape of every object in the airflow will contribute to more or
less parasite drag. Yes it could be that the fuselage, being at a more
nose-down attitude when the wings have a greater AoA, has a greater drag.
But the author of the article doesn't know that, does he?
Likewise, I don't understand how a greater wing AoA increases STOL capacity.
I have been told that there isn't such a thing as a stall speed, only a
stall AoA. STOL means that you can land slower, right? Will the wing AoA
make it stall at a greater AoA? I don't understand. I will make the fuselage
more nose-up when stalling on landing. It can make your 3-points landing
with a tailwheel touching first. But so can gap-sealing elevators, your CoG,
your wheels' diameter, etc.
I am sorry, I don't get it and if I am the only one on the list not to get
it so let it be. Maybe I am slow and in a few months I'll wake up in the
middle of the night and shout: EUREKA! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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 |
|
On my computer I have to switch to a higher resolution. My normal
resolution is 800X600. When I first started the FS-X all the video options
were set at minimal so I went into options and cranked everything up. Every
twenty minutes or so I will get a second or two video freeze so I would
suggest getting the biggest honkin' video board you can shoe horn into your
'puter. This is a big program so lots of RAM and one of those new dual core
processors won't go astray.
To complete the install of your copy and use all the features you will have
to go online and register it. After the program is registered you won't
have to insert the disk into the drive to operate the program.
The planes that are offered are getting wider and the process of choosing a
plane has changed to a thumbnail system that you can filter for specific
makes etc. The included trike is quite a bit of fun.
On the other hand I still like flying my kitfox III, FS-9, which I modified
and repainted to closely mimic my own plane. Too bad I haven't figured out
how to put it in floats... Yet! Funny thing I have only flown my plane on
floats and I've only flown the Simplane on wheels. I still have a bit of
work to do on it to get the radio to change frequencies.
Now for the bad news.... All those nice planes you have collected for your
FS 2004 won't work in X. I guess it's just a matter of time before someone
comes up with a file converter.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
> Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 12:30 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Flight Sim X
>
>
>
> 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
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> 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 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 |
|
I have a repaint and done a bit of tuning on a Sim'fox ... The radio won't
change frequency but if anyone knows where I can post a 2M file I'll put it
there. I'd send it to anyone who wanted it but I'm stuck on the end of a
wet string (sloooow dial up)
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> noel anderson
> Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 2:11 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Flight Sim X
>
>
> <nandrand@xtra.co.nz>
>
> 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>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Flight Sim X
>
>
> <trevorkebb@earthlink.net>
> >
> > 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 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: Rudder Control Cable |
> dan(at)azshowersolutions posted at Wed Dec 27, 2006 7:05 pm "My question
turns out to be which cable style is best to use? As I was looking at Spruce,
they display differences in strandings... 7x7, 7x19 and a 1x19. Does anyone know
what Kitfox uses?"
Dan,
An educated guess.... and info.
7 x 19 for KF and general aircraft use (as control cables)
The numbers equate to strands and winds.
1x19 (1 cable made up of 19 single stranded winds) is the least flexible - generally
used for standing rigging on a sailboat.... or other non-flex situations
7x7 (1 cable made up of 7 strand in each of 7 winds) can be used for non-flex situations
(use only with large radius turning sheaves where turning is required)
7x19 (1 cable made up of 7 strand in each of 19 winds) can be used for flex situations
such and control cables including (small sheaves and 180 degree are common)
--------
Richard in SW Michigan
Model 1 / 618 - full-lotus floats (restoration)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83754#83754
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Control Cable |
I did the switch to stainless steel cables and turnbuckles, and I
used the 7x19 with swaged MS20667 fork-ends at the rudder horns, and
turnbuckles at the rudder ends. I'm not sure of advantages of going
to 1/8", but weight would be a disadvantage, along with stiffness,
but this doesn't seem like it would be a problem, given the pretty
straight shot from front to back in the plane. Mine have worked well
for over 200 hours so far. The plane came with the galvanized 7x19
cables.
Lynn
On Dec 27, 2006, at 9:05 AM, Dan Billingsley wrote:
> I have decided to change up my rudder control cables on my IV. It
> currently has a 3/32" cable with the stock connecting ends...I'm
> switching over to turnbuckels. My question turns out to be which
> cable style is best to use? As I was looking at Spruce, they
> display differences in strandings... 7x7, 7x19 and a 1x19. Does
> anyone know what Kitfox uses? Are there advantages / disadvantages
> to moving to 1/8". Not sure here.
> Thanks, Dan
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List _-
> ===========================================================
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: | First (Four) Flights!! |
Hello All Kitfox Lovers,
I'm proud to report that another Series 5 is now flying (as of Saturday 23
Dec)!
My apologies for not reporting sooner, but I've been pretty obsessed with
flying it every day since. The tach is now reading 6.9 hrs!! The wind &
rain are keeping me on the ground today so I have a chance to catch up on
communications.
In a nutshell everything went well (even though I was extremely nervous &
prepared to die) with only a couple of bleeps. First sustained full power
burning of the exhaust system (presumably) caused a 'smoke' trail on take
off which caused a little concern in the tower. Also a slight power loss at
about 900' AGL was cause for great concern, but some manipulation of the
throttle & mixture controls cleared it up. After my heart rate came down &
I had ~5,000' of altitude, I mostly ran the engine @ 75+% power & paid
attention to the gauges. I did a very light stall before descending to a
not pretty but still in one piece landing. What a feeling! Thanks for the
help & encouragement of everyone on this list.
As I'm still in the process of seating the rings on my rebuilt Lycoming I've
mostly been running the engine hard, closely monitoring the gauges & purely
loving life & flying too. So I don't have any hard numbers to report other
than to say that my plane seems to be behaving about as I'd hoped and about
as reported by others with the same engine. I'll plan to post some
performance numbers once I've done a lot more flight testing.
Again, thanks a million for the help, enouragement & organization of this
list - It is a great service! Extra thanks to John McBean & Bruce Lina.
Grant Krueger
San Luis Obispo, CA
_________________________________________________________________
>From photos to predictions, The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes has
it all. http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/
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: Difference between the model II and model III. |
Yes, thanks much Torgier. A Christmas gift from you!
Rex Hefferan
Colorado, Model 2/582
do not archive
john perry wrote:
> 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 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: First (Four) Flights!! |
Whaaaaahoooooo! Another one takes to the air. Congrats Grant. Now the
real fun begins.
Deke
NE MI
42f, sunny, calm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 11:27 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: First (Four) Flights!!
>
> Hello All Kitfox Lovers,
>
> I'm proud to report that another Series 5 is now flying (as of Saturday 23
> Dec)!
>
> My apologies for not reporting sooner, but I've been pretty obsessed with
> flying it every day since. The tach is now reading 6.9 hrs!! The wind &
> rain are keeping me on the ground today so I have a chance to catch up on
> communications.
>
> In a nutshell everything went well (even though I was extremely nervous &
> prepared to die) with only a couple of bleeps. First sustained full power
> burning of the exhaust system (presumably) caused a 'smoke' trail on take
> off which caused a little concern in the tower. Also a slight power loss
at
> about 900' AGL was cause for great concern, but some manipulation of the
> throttle & mixture controls cleared it up. After my heart rate came down
&
> I had ~5,000' of altitude, I mostly ran the engine @ 75+% power & paid
> attention to the gauges. I did a very light stall before descending to a
> not pretty but still in one piece landing. What a feeling! Thanks for
the
> help & encouragement of everyone on this list.
>
> As I'm still in the process of seating the rings on my rebuilt Lycoming
I've
> mostly been running the engine hard, closely monitoring the gauges &
purely
> loving life & flying too. So I don't have any hard numbers to report
other
> than to say that my plane seems to be behaving about as I'd hoped and
about
> as reported by others with the same engine. I'll plan to post some
> performance numbers once I've done a lot more flight testing.
>
> Again, thanks a million for the help, enouragement & organization of this
> list - It is a great service! Extra thanks to John McBean & Bruce Lina.
>
> Grant Krueger
> San Luis Obispo, CA
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> >From photos to predictions, The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes
has
> it all. http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/
>
>
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: | First (Four) Flights!! |
That blip in the engine could have been, amongst other things, carb icing...
The AMO I used to work for always recommended using pure mineral oil for the
first 50 Hr. to seat the valves and rings. When you change it you will
appreciate that it works..... It will be as black as tar!
Congratulations. Sounds like you have a real keeper there!
Noel
a
> slight power loss at
> about 900' AGL was cause for great concern, but some
> manipulation of the
> throttle & mixture controls cleared it up. After my heart
> rate came down
> As I'm still in the process of seating the rings on my
> rebuilt Lycoming I've
> mostly been running the engine hard, closely monitoring the
> gauges & purely
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: First (Four) Flights!! |
Congrats Grant ! What a way to ring in the new year a few days early !!.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 11:27 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: First (Four) Flights!!
>
> Hello All Kitfox Lovers,
>
> I'm proud to report that another Series 5 is now flying (as of Saturday 23
> Dec)!
>
> My apologies for not reporting sooner, but I've been pretty obsessed with
> flying it every day since. The tach is now reading 6.9 hrs!! The wind &
> rain are keeping me on the ground today so I have a chance to catch up on
> communications.
>
> In a nutshell everything went well (even though I was extremely nervous &
> prepared to die) with only a couple of bleeps. First sustained full power
> burning of the exhaust system (presumably) caused a 'smoke' trail on take
> off which caused a little concern in the tower. Also a slight power loss
> at about 900' AGL was cause for great concern, but some manipulation of
> the throttle & mixture controls cleared it up. After my heart rate came
> down & I had ~5,000' of altitude, I mostly ran the engine @ 75+% power &
> paid attention to the gauges. I did a very light stall before descending
> to a not pretty but still in one piece landing. What a feeling! Thanks
> for the help & encouragement of everyone on this list.
>
> As I'm still in the process of seating the rings on my rebuilt Lycoming
> I've mostly been running the engine hard, closely monitoring the gauges &
> purely loving life & flying too. So I don't have any hard numbers to
> report other than to say that my plane seems to be behaving about as I'd
> hoped and about as reported by others with the same engine. I'll plan to
> post some performance numbers once I've done a lot more flight testing.
>
> Again, thanks a million for the help, enouragement & organization of this
> list - It is a great service! Extra thanks to John McBean & Bruce Lina.
>
> Grant Krueger
> San Luis Obispo, CA
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>>From photos to predictions, The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes
>>has
> it all. http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/
>
>
>
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: Older Kitfox cruise speeds |
On Dec 27, 2006, at 3:23 PM, mscotter wrote:
> <SNIP> hence allowing the nose to be lower and us to see over
> it better.
Aha! Now we are getting closer, Mark! I am sorry, I didn't read
entirely the article Paul provided, mostly what he underlined in red. I
have then missed the point in the high AoA.
> <SNIP> and thus be developing lift and flying sooner.
Good Lord! Then I have to revise my take off technique. I fly from a
long asphalt runway so STOL is not very actual. But, at occasions, I
need to take off from short grass runways. Now, I was instructed to
take off by pushing the stick full forward, if anything, to see sooner
over the cowling. Once I was with a passenger, on a hot summer day, on
a short grass field and I pulled the stick back a bit too soon, the
plane wasn't ready to take off. We did a few hop and I didn't like it
(nor my passenger, for the matter! :-)
After that, I tried to improve the technique which is: Full throttle
and stick full forward. As soon as the plane is level, I wait for Vso
then pull the flaps and keep the plane a few inches over the ground
until speed is enough to go ballistic toward the sky, after pushing in
the flaps.
Is this wrong? Because if the high AoA is to help STOL, then I should
take off with the tailwheel still on the ground, right? I thought it
was important, on short fields, to be horizontal as soon as possible,
to have as little as possible induced drag and pick up speed fast.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: Rudder Control Cable |
Lynn and Richard,
Thank you for your replies!
Dan
Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net> wrote:
I did the switch to stainless steel cables and turnbuckles, and I
used the 7x19 with swaged MS20667 fork-ends at the rudder horns, and
turnbuckles at the rudder ends. I'm not sure of advantages of going
to 1/8", but weight would be a disadvantage, along with stiffness,
but this doesn't seem like it would be a problem, given the pretty
straight shot from front to back in the plane. Mine have worked well
for over 200 hours so far. The plane came with the galvanized 7x19
cables.
Lynn
On Dec 27, 2006, at 9:05 AM, Dan Billingsley wrote:
> I have decided to change up my rudder control cables on my IV. It
> currently has a 3/32" cable with the stock connecting ends...I'm
> switching over to turnbuckels. My question turns out to be which
> cable style is best to use? As I was looking at Spruce, they
> display differences in strandings... 7x7, 7x19 and a 1x19. Does
> anyone know what Kitfox uses? Are there advantages / disadvantages
> to moving to 1/8". Not sure here.
> Thanks, Dan
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List _-
> ===========================================================
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: Older Kitfox cruise speeds |
You've been flying a lot longer than I have, Michel, but my takeoff
technique is different. I was instructed to hold neutral elevator,
full power, then at about 30mph, forward stick only until tail
raised, then hold neutral elevator until liftoff, or pull back
slightly to induce liftoff. Then either forward for ground effects
(shortfield) and quicker achievement of Vy, or back for Vx, but only
when Vy speed has been achieved. Of course my cowl is the Skyfox
cowl, and easier to see over (even for this 5' 6" pilot), so I don't
have to...or WANT to...push that stick forward too far, let alone
full forward. My soft field technique is to hold stick full back,
firewall the throttle, and hold stick back until it lifts off by
itself, then forward until Vy is achieved, then use stick to hold
Vy. As my instructor says, "as soon as you leave the ground, your
soft field is over."
Lynn
On Dec 27, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
>
> On Dec 27, 2006, at 3:23 PM, mscotter wrote:
>> <SNIP> hence allowing the nose to be lower and us to see over
>> it better.
>
> Aha! Now we are getting closer, Mark! I am sorry, I didn't read
> entirely the article Paul provided, mostly what he underlined in
> red. I have then missed the point in the high AoA.
>
>> <SNIP> and thus be developing lift and flying sooner.
>
> Good Lord! Then I have to revise my take off technique. I fly from
> a long asphalt runway so STOL is not very actual. But, at
> occasions, I need to take off from short grass runways. Now, I was
> instructed to take off by pushing the stick full forward, if
> anything, to see sooner over the cowling. Once I was with a
> passenger, on a hot summer day, on a short grass field and I pulled
> the stick back a bit too soon, the plane wasn't ready to take off.
> We did a few hop and I didn't like it (nor my passenger, for the
> matter! :-)
> After that, I tried to improve the technique which is: Full
> throttle and stick full forward. As soon as the plane is level, I
> wait for Vso then pull the flaps and keep the plane a few inches
> over the ground until speed is enough to go ballistic toward the
> sky, after pushing in the flaps.
> Is this wrong? Because if the high AoA is to help STOL, then I
> should take off with the tailwheel still on the ground, right? I
> thought it was important, on short fields, to be horizontal as soon
> as possible, to have as little as possible induced drag and pick up
> speed fast.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
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: | More speeds: Older Kitfox cruise speeds |
Lynn,
I find the shortest take off is
Full power - brakes if you have or can
tail up and zero flaps
When "my ASI " hits just about 30mph then ==> FULL FLAPS ( mine go over 30
degrees)
You will break ground in a hurry -
start bleeding off flaps to 20 degree and climb bleeding out flaps as you
climb and your vertical speed increases.
depending on weight you can be airbourne in well under 100 feet on wheels
and on float this can help break the suction on glassy water........
Dave
IV 582
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Older Kitfox cruise speeds
>
> You've been flying a lot longer than I have, Michel, but my takeoff
> technique is different. I was instructed to hold neutral elevator, full
> power, then at about 30mph, forward stick only until tail raised, then
> hold neutral elevator until liftoff, or pull back slightly to induce
> liftoff. Then either forward for ground effects (shortfield) and quicker
> achievement of Vy, or back for Vx, but only when Vy speed has been
> achieved. Of course my cowl is the Skyfox cowl, and easier to see over
> (even for this 5' 6" pilot), so I don't have to...or WANT to...push that
> stick forward too far, let alone full forward. My soft field technique is
> to hold stick full back, firewall the throttle, and hold stick back until
> it lifts off by itself, then forward until Vy is achieved, then use stick
> to hold Vy. As my instructor says, "as soon as you leave the ground,
> your soft field is over."
>
> Lynn
>
> On Dec 27, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 27, 2006, at 3:23 PM, mscotter wrote:
>>> <SNIP> hence allowing the nose to be lower and us to see over
>>> it better.
>>
>> Aha! Now we are getting closer, Mark! I am sorry, I didn't read entirely
>> the article Paul provided, mostly what he underlined in red. I have then
>> missed the point in the high AoA.
>>
>>> <SNIP> and thus be developing lift and flying sooner.
>>
>> Good Lord! Then I have to revise my take off technique. I fly from a
>> long asphalt runway so STOL is not very actual. But, at occasions, I
>> need to take off from short grass runways. Now, I was instructed to take
>> off by pushing the stick full forward, if anything, to see sooner over
>> the cowling. Once I was with a passenger, on a hot summer day, on a
>> short grass field and I pulled the stick back a bit too soon, the plane
>> wasn't ready to take off. We did a few hop and I didn't like it (nor my
>> passenger, for the matter! :-)
>> After that, I tried to improve the technique which is: Full throttle and
>> stick full forward. As soon as the plane is level, I wait for Vso then
>> pull the flaps and keep the plane a few inches over the ground until
>> speed is enough to go ballistic toward the sky, after pushing in the
>> flaps.
>> Is this wrong? Because if the high AoA is to help STOL, then I should
>> take off with the tailwheel still on the ground, right? I thought it was
>> important, on short fields, to be horizontal as soon as possible, to
>> have as little as possible induced drag and pick up speed fast.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michel
>
>
>
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: | Speed required to air start |
Has anyone ever shut off engine and Airstarted ?
If so at what speed could you get engine restarted?
My 582 with GSC I tried today and you have to dive to about 90 to 95 or so.
I would be interested in what others have experienced with their engine /
prop combination.
If you have not done this , you should so you can get a feel for the
differance in glide incase you have to make a forced approach.
I will try next time I switch props and report back.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Older Kitfox cruise speeds
>
> You've been flying a lot longer than I have, Michel, but my takeoff
> technique is different. I was instructed to hold neutral elevator, full
> power, then at about 30mph, forward stick only until tail raised, then
> hold neutral elevator until liftoff, or pull back slightly to induce
> liftoff. Then either forward for ground effects (shortfield) and quicker
> achievement of Vy, or back for Vx, but only when Vy speed has been
> achieved. Of course my cowl is the Skyfox cowl, and easier to see over
> (even for this 5' 6" pilot), so I don't have to...or WANT to...push that
> stick forward too far, let alone full forward. My soft field technique is
> to hold stick full back, firewall the throttle, and hold stick back until
> it lifts off by itself, then forward until Vy is achieved, then use stick
> to hold Vy. As my instructor says, "as soon as you leave the ground,
> your soft field is over."
>
> Lynn
>
> On Dec 27, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 27, 2006, at 3:23 PM, mscotter wrote:
>>> <SNIP> hence allowing the nose to be lower and us to see over
>>> it better.
>>
>> Aha! Now we are getting closer, Mark! I am sorry, I didn't read entirely
>> the article Paul provided, mostly what he underlined in red. I have then
>> missed the point in the high AoA.
>>
>>> <SNIP> and thus be developing lift and flying sooner.
>>
>> Good Lord! Then I have to revise my take off technique. I fly from a
>> long asphalt runway so STOL is not very actual. But, at occasions, I
>> need to take off from short grass runways. Now, I was instructed to take
>> off by pushing the stick full forward, if anything, to see sooner over
>> the cowling. Once I was with a passenger, on a hot summer day, on a
>> short grass field and I pulled the stick back a bit too soon, the plane
>> wasn't ready to take off. We did a few hop and I didn't like it (nor my
>> passenger, for the matter! :-)
>> After that, I tried to improve the technique which is: Full throttle and
>> stick full forward. As soon as the plane is level, I wait for Vso then
>> pull the flaps and keep the plane a few inches over the ground until
>> speed is enough to go ballistic toward the sky, after pushing in the
>> flaps.
>> Is this wrong? Because if the high AoA is to help STOL, then I should
>> take off with the tailwheel still on the ground, right? I thought it was
>> important, on short fields, to be horizontal as soon as possible, to
>> have as little as possible induced drag and pick up speed fast.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michel
>
>
>
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: | Model 2 to 3 upgrade - Denney Aerocraft Owners Newsletter. |
Torgier, great info and good work.
I have to say that some of those mods on the model 2 to 3 upgrade should
interest Float fliers in the models 2 as well. Extra strength to a
potential weak spot at the crossover tube should be of interest.
If any of you know hte Skyfox , I think it pretty close to a clone of the
Kitfox and they have cracking carry through tube issues. IF you need a
link let me know as I have the pdf on it or a google search should most
likely find it .
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor@online.no>
Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 8:08 PM
Subject: 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/
>
>
> Do not archive
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | less than 100 foot take off ... cool |
Less than 100 feet? calm day? Wow awesome
I thought I could TO short :-)
I once had a bit of snow on my runway so I could plainly see and accurately
measure I also tried different things. Best I got was a bit under 200 feet
on a cold day, no wind, solo, 1/2 fuel. Most were around 225 feet.
I even have some on vid
Full Brake full power full up elevator, release brake, after about a long
second, full down to level. Adjust elevator to maintain level, then as I pass
35 mph Up to rotate.
My strip is 750 feet total. So I practice this all the time.
I cant imagine a KF taking off in less than 100 feet, that has to be a rush!
Dave Patrick
KF 2 582
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: | less than 100 foot take off ... cool |
What is the hp / engine and empty weight
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Aerobatics@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 8:47 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: less than 100 foot take off ... cool
Less than 100 feet? calm day? Wow awesome
I thought I could TO short :-)
I once had a bit of snow on my runway so I could plainly see and accurately
measure I also tried different things. Best I got was a bit under 200 feet
on a cold day, no wind, solo, 1/2 fuel. Most were around 225 feet.
I even have some on vid
Full Brake full power full up elevator, release brake, after about a long
second, full down to level. Adjust elevator to maintain level, then as I
pass 35 mph Up to rotate.
My strip is 750 feet total. So I practice this all the time.
I cant imagine a KF taking off in less than 100 feet, that has to be a rush!
Dave Patrick
KF 2 582
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: | Re: More speeds: Older Kitfox cruise speeds |
I haven't tried full flaps for TO, but have done 1/2 flaps, on at
full brakes, full power and let 'er go...this for the short-field TO.
My flaps are maxed at about 22-23 degrees....the SUGGESTED setting
for the IV, and I've got a cruise prop and 4-stroke power, so I'm a
"no-contender" for the TO trophy. : ) My hangar mate also goes to
full flaps while rolling his 1956 172 Cessna just before rotation...I
suppose this allows for faster acceleration than going to full flaps
during stand-still, then accelerating with the "full-flap drag"?
Lynn
On Dec 27, 2006, at 8:48 PM, dave wrote:
>
> Lynn,
> I find the shortest take off is
> Full power - brakes if you have or can
> tail up and zero flaps
> When "my ASI " hits just about 30mph then ==> FULL FLAPS ( mine go
> over 30 degrees)
> You will break ground in a hurry -
> start bleeding off flaps to 20 degree and climb bleeding out flaps
> as you climb and your vertical speed increases.
> depending on weight you can be airbourne in well under 100 feet on
> wheels
> and on float this can help break the suction on glassy water........
>
> Dave
> IV 582
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 8:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Older Kitfox cruise speeds
>
>
>>
>> You've been flying a lot longer than I have, Michel, but my
>> takeoff technique is different. I was instructed to hold neutral
>> elevator, full power, then at about 30mph, forward stick only
>> until tail raised, then hold neutral elevator until liftoff, or
>> pull back slightly to induce liftoff. Then either forward for
>> ground effects (shortfield) and quicker achievement of Vy, or
>> back for Vx, but only when Vy speed has been achieved. Of course
>> my cowl is the Skyfox cowl, and easier to see over (even for this
>> 5' 6" pilot), so I don't have to...or WANT to...push that stick
>> forward too far, let alone full forward. My soft field technique
>> is to hold stick full back, firewall the throttle, and hold stick
>> back until it lifts off by itself, then forward until Vy is
>> achieved, then use stick to hold Vy. As my instructor says, "as
>> soon as you leave the ground, your soft field is over."
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>> On Dec 27, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
>>
>>> <michel@online.no>
>>>
>>> On Dec 27, 2006, at 3:23 PM, mscotter wrote:
>>>> <SNIP> hence allowing the nose to be lower and us to see over
>>>> it better.
>>>
>>> Aha! Now we are getting closer, Mark! I am sorry, I didn't read
>>> entirely the article Paul provided, mostly what he underlined in
>>> red. I have then missed the point in the high AoA.
>>>
>>>> <SNIP> and thus be developing lift and flying sooner.
>>>
>>> Good Lord! Then I have to revise my take off technique. I fly
>>> from a long asphalt runway so STOL is not very actual. But, at
>>> occasions, I need to take off from short grass runways. Now, I
>>> was instructed to take off by pushing the stick full forward,
>>> if anything, to see sooner over the cowling. Once I was with a
>>> passenger, on a hot summer day, on a short grass field and I
>>> pulled the stick back a bit too soon, the plane wasn't ready to
>>> take off. We did a few hop and I didn't like it (nor my
>>> passenger, for the matter! :-)
>>> After that, I tried to improve the technique which is: Full
>>> throttle and stick full forward. As soon as the plane is level,
>>> I wait for Vso then pull the flaps and keep the plane a few
>>> inches over the ground until speed is enough to go ballistic
>>> toward the sky, after pushing in the flaps.
>>> Is this wrong? Because if the high AoA is to help STOL, then I
>>> should take off with the tailwheel still on the ground, right? I
>>> thought it was important, on short fields, to be horizontal as
>>> soon as possible, to have as little as possible induced drag and
>>> pick up speed fast.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Michel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: less than 100 foot take off ... cool |
In a message dated 12/27/2006 9:42:39 P.M. Central Standard Time,
kirkhull@kc.rr.com writes:
What is the hp / engine and empty weight
Empty wt is 480 lbs its a KF 2 the 582 Blue head is 66 hp on an E box IVO
3 blade UL prop
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! --
|