Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:37 AM - Re: Kitfox website FAQ (84KF)
2. 05:06 AM - Clear bubble doors (fox5flyer)
3. 05:17 AM - Re: Re: Kitfox website FAQ (john perry)
4. 05:34 AM - Re: Re: Kitfox website FAQ (john perry)
5. 06:01 AM - Re: Droop Tips (W & R Beck)
6. 07:46 AM - Re: my latest heat muff revision (Rick)
7. 08:18 AM - Re: my latest heat muff revision (D. Fisher)
8. 08:18 AM - Re: Droop Wing Tips (D. Fisher)
9. 09:29 AM - Very low time engine for sale (Jim Crowder)
10. 09:55 AM - Re: Droop Wing Tips (Noel Loveys)
11. 12:50 PM - Re: Kitfox website FAQ (84KF)
12. 01:19 PM - Re: Re: Kitfox website FAQ (D. Fisher)
13. 03:17 PM - Re: Re: Kitfox website FAQ (Barry West)
14. 03:23 PM - Re: Re: Kitfox website FAQ (Noel Loveys)
15. 04:12 PM - Re: Kitfox website FAQ (84KF)
16. 05:58 PM - Re: Re: Kitfox website FAQ (john perry)
17. 06:58 PM - Re: Kitfox website FAQ (Tom Jones)
18. 07:05 PM - Sport Pilot above 10,000' (Randy Daughenbaugh)
19. 07:06 PM - Re: Kitfox website FAQ (kitfoxmike)
20. 07:06 PM - Re: Kitfox website FAQ (84KF)
21. 07:39 PM - Off topic - icebreaker Amazing video (84KF)
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 website FAQ |
"A sport airplane must be CERTIFIED to have a maximum gross weight of no more than
1320 pounds unless it is on floats."
Maximum gross weight???? Where might one find that term used in either the Final
Rule or the sportpilot regs? Enlighten us please. Provide the reference.
Maximum takeoff weight...yes... max gross...nope.
No comment on your use of the word "certified"
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98798#98798
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: | Clear bubble doors |
Russ, 7 years ago when I built my 5 I installed the LP bubble doors.
Since then I've never looked back. Actually, I spent the bucks and also
installed the LP one-piece windshield with the bubble doors. There are
advantages that include resistance to scratching. The acrylic is much
easier to maintain that butyrate or polycarbonate, commonly provided for
the Kitfoxes. If taken care of it should be good for 20 years or more.
The doors provide a greenhouse atmosphere in the airplane and allow one
to look straight down at the ground which also enhances safety as the
visual parameters are increased. Lots of other reasons that make them a
good investment.
They're also easy to install and seal very well. To attach I used the
double sided sticky foam tape that's about 1/32" thick. As a backup I
used #6 panhead machine screws about every 12" anchored with nutserts.
Still holding up fine and still look like new.
The only downside I can think of is that they're heavier than the
polycarbonate units. Mainly because they're thicker.
I have no idea what they cost these days, but I suspect considerably
more than 7 years ago.
Good luck,
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: Russ & Jacque Solsvig
To: kitfox-list
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 9:49 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Clear bubble doors
Hi all. I'm the proud owner of a series 5 I0-240 powered kitfox.It was
the original factory "Outback" demo bird. I'm very pleased with it, and
think that putting the clear bubble doors on it would be the way to go.
Any forum members who have these, how do you like them, do they seal
well, and are they a big deal to put on?
Also,while I'm dreaming on a cold winter day, anyone have any feedback
concerning amphib floats on a 5 series kitfox, i.e. performance, type,
mounting issues, prop needed, etc. Great site. Thanks!
Russ
Solsvig
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: Kitfox website FAQ |
STEVE
You continue to beat this to death and I for one am tired of it . IF you
connot realize that to fly a under Sport Pilot the aircraft CANNOT ever have
been from the first time since its first certification has continued to meet
the following
[II] 1320 lbs for land plane
[III] 1430 lbs for seaplane
This meens that if the plane was certified with a maximum weight of 1350 lbs
originaly at time of certification for experimetnal class or otherwise then
it cannot be used for sport pilot
READ CFR PART 1.1
THIS IS SET IN STONE .
If you cannot read and comprehend this then I dont think you need to be
flying at all.
If you dont like the rules then go to the FAA and tell them your theory.
John Perry
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox website FAQ |
Heres your answer .
http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/aircraft_index.html
http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/lsa/standard_certificate_aircraft.html
John Perry
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 |
|
Nah, ground looped my Model IV with Hoerner tips once and scraped the tip
only. No damage to the flaperon.
This was with standard, not Speedster, length wings.
Droop tips were a fad that came and quickly went.
RB
Do not archive
>
> Here is a place I think the droop winglets may help: It will protect
> the flaperons in case of a ground loop where the wing tip touches the
> ground. I never tried it so I have no idea if I am right, just a hunch.
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: | my latest heat muff revision |
Nice work and a great idea. Aside from flying I miss that sort of stuff
as much.
Rick
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
lynnmatt@jps.net
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 10:55 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: my latest heat muff revision
I just got back from a test ........................ Lynn
Get Kodak prints of this picture, and all your other favorites, at
<http://www.kodakgallery.com/kesmail> www.kodakgallery.com!
How to save a picture
Simply right-click on it, then "Save Image As...". (Mac users: drag
the picture to your desktop.)
Free Software!
Organize, print, and share your digital photos using FREE Kodak
EasyShare software. <http://www.kodak.com/go/easysharerd> Download the
software
Get 20 Free Prints
<http://www.kodakgallery.com/Register.jsp?cm_ven=ptnr_kes&cm_cat=remaile
r&cm_pla=link&cm_ite=10fp&sourceid=370217875303> Get started for free at
kodakgallery.com and we'll give you 20 free prints (new members only).
Plus, create photo mugs, books, cards, and more!
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: my latest heat muff revision |
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: Droop Wing Tips |
Rex, Thanks for that info.
Has anyone tried the Hoerner style tip and actually replaced the Droop tips
?
That is what I am looking for........ What it looks like is not important
as how it performs.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 10:35 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Droop Wing Tips
>
> I would like to think that they might help in ground effect but I cannot
> see
> what gain they are otherwise .
> They would tend to hold the vortice in longer and I think for better STOL
> perhaps if they were inverted they would hold the low pressure in better
> on
> top and possibly create more lift ? Simular to a STOL fence on a 185.
>
> What was reason for newer Kitfoxes to have the differnt tip anyone ?
> Lessening Adverse yaw would be my thought.
> Speed ? I am not sure as mine runs 86 to 90mph on wheels with a 582 .
>
> Dave
>
> Hi Dave,
> I already commented re ground loop possible protection but
> did
> not mention other aspects because I though I was getting out of my depth.
> Never the less you have expressed your thoughts so I'll express mine. I
> do'nt necesarilly disagree with you but as I see it the high pressure
> under
> the wing that normally can flow out at the tips to join the low pressure
> on
> the top gets deflected down by the droop tips actually adding to lift. If
> that high pressure is allowed to flow out from under the wing at the tip
> and
> join the low pressure on top it negates some of the lift reducing the
> effective wing area. Anyway that's as I see it and if I remember correctly
> it is what I was taught.
>
> Rex.
> rexjan@bigpond.com
>
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Very low time engine for sale |
Back last fall Mike Couillard purchased my NSI EA81 Turbo Engine, CAP
(Cabin Adjustable Prop), Series 5 Engine Mount, and Cowling along with
many accessories including a large lightweight cabin heater, and several
gauges. Upgrades include the larger carburetor, custom stainless steel
exhaust crossover, and larger aluminum radiator to accommodate the
greater heat due to the turbo charger. My reason for selling the
package was that I needed to modify my aircraft to match the new LSA
requirements. I now have a firewall forward package from Jabiru which I
will receive the second week of March.
Just as my life plans changed, Mike tells me he has experience health
problems, and a change of employment which will not provide the income
to support the completion or ownership of an airplane. You might
remember that I posted information regarding his offer to sell his
partially completed Series 5 Kitfox kit a week or so ago. He has it
listed on Barnstormers.
At the time I originally offered my engine package, I had a problem with
my dual ignition system. I have since repaired that and I have many
parts left over which would allow a similar repair several times over.
These will go with the engine. As of now the engine is still mounted on
my Series 5 and can be run for a prospective buyer. As I want to remove
it to install my new engine, time is of the essence. You can say we are
motivated sellers.
Mike is asking the same price I originally offered on this list.
$8,700.00. My purchase price was approximately twice that amount. The
engine runs very nicely. It is very low time as I never completed my
40 hours fly-off. I ended up with a house to build and a 40 ft.
sailboat in Hawaii to restore. I am in the process of completing that
and am putting the boat up for sale to free up capital and time for my
Kitfox. My eyes were bigger than my pocket book and available time
could handle. I also have a serious heath threat. For those of you who
kindly inquire from time to time, I currently feel great and am using up
the life I am granted.
My cell phone number is 970 420-4415. My Colorado home number is 970
669-0498 with calls forwarded to my cell phone when I am away as now is
the case. You can reply to this e-mail or call me.
Mike Couillard's phone number is 719 651-7722. Mike's e-mail address is
couillard1@msn.com. Mike lives in Colorado Springs and I and the engine
are at Loveland, CO which is about 50 miles north of Denver. Like they
say on TV, "Lets make a deal"!
Jim Crowder
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 |
|
Just a guess but I could see where the Hoener tips will climb and cruise a
bit faster. I would also expect the lift off would be a tad longer. I
wouldn't expect any great changes in an 80 mph airplane.
If you went with a one piece cowl, all the struts faired the Grove spring
gear, Hoener tips small wheels with pants and a 914 you could easily
increase your speed to the point where you will want to redesign your
windshield so it wouldn't blow out.
Just don't expect it to do the snappy take offs it does now and you will
make your mud jumping nothing more than a memory. Flying floats may a bit
different too. But if you got as much water as I do the Hoeners might save
you a couple of pennies on longish a flight.
Have you checked out the weight of the Hoeners vs. the droops??
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of D. Fisher
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 12:48 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Droop Wing Tips
>
>
>
> Rex, Thanks for that info.
>
>
> Has anyone tried the Hoerner style tip and actually replaced
> the Droop tips
> ?
> That is what I am looking for........ What it looks like is
> not important
> as how it performs.
>
>
> Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 10:35 PM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Droop Wing Tips
>
>
> <rexjan@bigpond.com>
> >
> > I would like to think that they might help in ground effect
> but I cannot
> > see
> > what gain they are otherwise .
> > They would tend to hold the vortice in longer and I think
> for better STOL
> > perhaps if they were inverted they would hold the low
> pressure in better
> > on
> > top and possibly create more lift ? Simular to a STOL
> fence on a 185.
> >
> > What was reason for newer Kitfoxes to have the differnt tip anyone ?
> > Lessening Adverse yaw would be my thought.
> > Speed ? I am not sure as mine runs 86 to 90mph on wheels
> with a 582 .
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > Hi Dave,
> > I already commented re ground loop possible
> protection but
> > did
> > not mention other aspects because I though I was getting
> out of my depth.
> > Never the less you have expressed your thoughts so I'll
> express mine. I
> > do'nt necesarilly disagree with you but as I see it the
> high pressure
> > under
> > the wing that normally can flow out at the tips to join the
> low pressure
> > on
> > the top gets deflected down by the droop tips actually
> adding to lift. If
> > that high pressure is allowed to flow out from under the
> wing at the tip
> > and
> > join the low pressure on top it negates some of the lift
> reducing the
> > effective wing area. Anyway that's as I see it and if I
> remember correctly
> > it is what I was taught.
> >
> > Rex.
> > rexjan@bigpond.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Kitfox website FAQ |
Personal slur noted. ...and ignored.
Yet the the following statement still remains unconfirmed by it's poster. I doubt
he will return with rational response. can you? Can you provide what he failed
to? Provide it from a FAA source, not a commercial publication the is subject
to errors and mis-information.
"A sport airplane must be CERTIFIED to have a maximum gross weight of no more
than 1320 pounds unless it is on floats."
Maximum gross weight???? Where might one find that term used in either the Final
Rule or the sportpilot regs? Enlighten us please. Provide the reference.
Maximum takeoff weight...yes... max gross...nope.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98911#98911
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: Kitfox website FAQ |
Steve,
In Canada we have a simular issue with regards to wording etc.
You guys cannot fly with a LSA license if the aircraft is registered over
1320 lbs on wheels.
Our Ultralight permit holders can fly a plane that has a higher gross but
takeoff weight cannot exceed 1200lbs.
-notice how i call it a "permit" because it is not a license - if thats
matters.
But A UL permit holder can fly say a Kitfox on floats at 1200 take off
weight and it does not matter if it a UL or amatuerbuilt or a Certified GA
aircraft but a priv pilot or higher license holder must have a float
endorsement.
Same silly laws with LSA have messed up the Amphib flyers as you can not
have a retractable gear in the category as I understand it . I know the
SPA went to bat for the amphib pilots last year and I would bet the law
would change soon.
Same goes in time for "adjustable props" . Notice I did not call them
ground adjust or CAP - just adjustable.
Another issue is since LSA pilots do not have a Aviation Medical they are
not allowed to fly in Canada either. I would expect this topic will be
adressed over the next 3 months as FAA and Transport Canada meet.
Hope this helps everyone, and I hate to say it but Steve it right. -- for
now at least .
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 3:49 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox website FAQ
>
> Personal slur noted. ...and ignored.
> Yet the the following statement still remains unconfirmed by it's poster.
> I doubt he will return with rational response. can you? Can you provide
> what he failed to? Provide it from a FAA source, not a commercial
> publication the is subject to errors and mis-information.
>
> "A sport airplane must be CERTIFIED to have a maximum gross weight of no
> more
> than 1320 pounds unless it is on floats."
>
> Maximum gross weight???? Where might one find that term used in either
> the Final Rule or the sportpilot regs? Enlighten us please. Provide the
> reference.
>
> Maximum takeoff weight...yes... max gross...nope.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98911#98911
>
>
>
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: Kitfox website FAQ |
You may be right that it is take off weight rather than maximum gross but
the point I am trying to make is that the original certifcation states the
weight the airplane will always be limited to. That is an airplane
originally certified at 1550 pounds can not be later limited to 1320 or any
other weight to become a sport plane.
Barry West
----- Original Message -----
From: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 2:49 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox website FAQ
>
> Personal slur noted. ...and ignored.
> Yet the the following statement still remains unconfirmed by it's poster.
> I doubt he will return with rational response. can you? Can you provide
> what he failed to? Provide it from a FAA source, not a commercial
> publication the is subject to errors and mis-information.
>
> "A sport airplane must be CERTIFIED to have a maximum gross weight of no
> more
> than 1320 pounds unless it is on floats."
>
> Maximum gross weight???? Where might one find that term used in either
> the Final Rule or the sportpilot regs? Enlighten us please. Provide the
> reference.
>
> Maximum takeoff weight...yes... max gross...nope.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98911#98911
>
>
>
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: Kitfox website FAQ |
Dave:
The fight I had with Transport Canada over the whole question of float
endorsement has been settled. A Pilot with a higher permit or license
than
Pilot Permit-Ultra light may fly any aircraft 1200lb. or under as an
ultralight regardless of the landing configuration. This comes about
as
the legal definition of an ultralight in Canada isn't one of
registration
but one of physical description. There fore if it flies in Canada and
is
under 1201Lb. and has a Vso of less than 45mph it is an ultralight
regardless of the registration, regardless of the landing configuration.
Of course there are other restrictions on aircraft that are registered
AULA
or BULA (Advanced Ultralight Aircraft or Basic Ultralight Aircraft).
The
most interesting of these I find to be the requirement for pilots of a
BULA
to wear a helmet while flying. That doesn't sound too bad until you
realize
there is no definition for a helmet. One fellow suggested a postage
stamp
would cover the legality.. And not too much more!
There is one item I think our American cousins will be interested in.
That
is the question of conventional gear endorsement.... We don't have any
such
endorsement. We do for people like myself, who have never flown
conventional gear, recommend getting some time before heading out to the
small grass/mud strips and breaking something. There is no legal
requirement for us to do so.
This is my third year coming up and you can believe I'm biting at the
bullet
to get my fox on flats back in the air.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of D. Fisher
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 5:49 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox website FAQ
>
>
>
> Steve,
>
> In Canada we have a simular issue with regards to wording etc.
> You guys cannot fly with a LSA license if the aircraft is
> registered over
> 1320 lbs on wheels.
> Our Ultralight permit holders can fly a plane that has a
> higher gross but
> takeoff weight cannot exceed 1200lbs.
> -notice how i call it a "permit" because it is not a license
> - if thats
> matters.
>
> But A UL permit holder can fly say a Kitfox on floats at
> 1200 take off
> weight and it does not matter if it a UL or amatuerbuilt or a
> Certified GA
> aircraft but a priv pilot or higher license holder must have a float
> endorsement.
>
> Same silly laws with LSA have messed up the Amphib flyers as
> you can not
> have a retractable gear in the category as I understand it .
> I know the
> SPA went to bat for the amphib pilots last year and I would
> bet the law
> would change soon.
> Same goes in time for "adjustable props" . Notice I did not
> call them
> ground adjust or CAP - just adjustable.
>
> Another issue is since LSA pilots do not have a Aviation
> Medical they are
> not allowed to fly in Canada either. I would expect this
> topic will be
> adressed over the next 3 months as FAA and Transport Canada meet.
>
> Hope this helps everyone, and I hate to say it but Steve it
> right. -- for
> now at least .
>
>
> Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 3:49 PM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox website FAQ
>
>
> >
> > Personal slur noted. ...and ignored.
> > Yet the the following statement still remains unconfirmed
> by it's poster.
> > I doubt he will return with rational response. can you?
> Can you provide
> > what he failed to? Provide it from a FAA source, not a commercial
> > publication the is subject to errors and mis-information.
> >
> > "A sport airplane must be CERTIFIED to have a maximum gross
> weight of no
> > more
> > than 1320 pounds unless it is on floats."
> >
> > Maximum gross weight???? Where might one find that term
> used in either
> > the Final Rule or the sportpilot regs? Enlighten us please.
> Provide the
> > reference.
> >
> > Maximum takeoff weight...yes... max gross...nope.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98911#98911
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Kitfox website FAQ |
Mr, West,
Tell me, or show me , where or when my Series 5 was ever certified with a" FAA
official" gross weight. Nothing in operating limitations, AW cert data plate
or current W&B. There is record, in the entire aircraft history, from application
for AW cert through compliance with phase 1 and beyond, nor is it necessary
under MY ops limits or FAA regs to even mention it or declare one.
My local FAA FSDO has reviewed it all and declared every thing in proper order.
It's a dog-gone Experimental-amateur built, with the proper and legal paperwork,
and meets the definition in FAR 1.1 with the exception of a "certified gross
weight" ....which it does not have, and is not required.
That leaves the official FAA definition of "maximum takeoff weight" as published
in the FAADOT Final Rule which states the restriction to remain at or below
1320lbs at time of take-off. How strong it was built , eg. it's design limit
of 1500LBS, has nothing to to with the mass of the aircraft at take-off. And
that is the key to the riddle. It's stated in the final rule that it is mass,
and only mass that that is of concern. Not silly paperwork.
Read it for yourself. I don't expect you to believe me.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98946#98946
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: Kitfox website FAQ |
Steve
Just curious what does your weight and balance show for a gross weight for
the aircraft of yours .
I am not trying to end a war or start a battle so I will say I am sorry for
some of the comments I made directed to you .
But the fact does remain According to Ok city the FINAL ANSWER IS 1320
period for maximum gross weight of the aircraft experimental certified or
LSA. to meet the requirement of sport pilot flyability . if it is over by
one pound on the paper work then it cannot legally be flown as a sport plane
.
I do really hope you figure this out soon
Fly safe fly low fly slow
John Perry
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: Kitfox website FAQ |
> My local FAA FSDO has reviewed it all and declared every thing in proper order.
A wise old work supervisor I once worked for (Federal Gov.) had a saying..."If
you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question".
That answer from your FISDO is very good news for you. The answers you will get
here are not.
Tom Jones
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98976#98976
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: | Sport Pilot above 10,000' |
This seems to be clear that even private pilots with a private ticket are
limited to 10,000' if flying as a sport pilot. (At least as interpreted by
the EAA.)
http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=180
Randy
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: Kitfox website FAQ |
The faa doesn't care about anything but what is in black and white, if you have
something in your records that shows more than 1320 for weight you better change
it or not fly sport with it, period. One more thing, if you are flying without
a weight and balance, shame on you, or I should say I would never fly your
airplane. And it's not because I'm flying sport either.
--------
kitfoxmike
model IV, 1200
speedster
912ul
Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98982#98982
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: | Re: Kitfox website FAQ |
John,
you wrote....
According to Ok city the FINAL ANSWER IS 1320 period for maximum gross weight
of the aircraft experimental certified or
LSA. to meet the requirement of sport pilot flyability . if it is over by one pound
on the paper work then it cannot legally be flown as a sport plane
What Federal (FAA) or DOT publication did they consult? Where does it ACTUALLY
say such? The last time I went to my FSDO, they went to the EAA website to get
their information because they didnt have a clue.
Seriously... WHERE does it say that?? You wont find such a statement because it
has never existed. only perpetuated by the print media and the uninformed.
Perhaps you could pass along the name of the actual Legal rep you spoke to at OKC
and his official source of information. Did they fax it to you? Bet not.
Unless its public and published, it wont gell and such hearsay just promotes
the (your) confusion
I have spoken to many more officials then just one, and if such information existed,
they would have shoved it in my face. They all had biased opinions, and
thats all they would offer.
The Easter Bunny and Santa Clause are not real ya know, even though our parents
told us so.
And we trusted and believed them too.
As for my weight and balance, read my previous post.
...and Tom...I hear ya! ;-)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98983#98983
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: | Off topic - icebreaker Amazing video |
Ya'all gotta see this...and try not to smile to much....
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=61b3901ac51b5c12457145eea53b71bc.1504232&cache=1
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98990#98990
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! --
|