Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:47 AM - Re: Kitfox website FAQ (84KF)
2. 05:04 AM - Re: Re: Kitfox website FAQ (D. Fisher)
3. 05:07 AM - Re: Re: Kitfox website FAQ (D. Fisher)
4. 05:15 AM - Re: Kitfox website FAQ (84KF)
5. 05:34 AM - Re: Kitfox website FAQ (84KF)
6. 06:06 AM - Re: Re: Kitfox website FAQ (Michel Verheughe)
7. 06:30 AM - Re: Kitfox website FAQ (84KF)
8. 10:02 AM - a/c smells (DEAN TINAGLIA)
9. 11:07 AM - Re: a/c smells (84KF)
10. 01:38 PM - Door Locks? (Nick Scholtes)
11. 02:02 PM - Re: Re: Kitfox website FAQ (Dave G.)
12. 02:30 PM - Denmark. WAS: Kitfox website FAQ (Michel Verheughe)
13. 03:15 PM - Re: Door Locks? (Floyd Johnson)
14. 03:30 PM - Re: Door Locks? (kitfoxmike)
15. 04:44 PM - Re: Re: Door Locks? (Todd Leiss)
16. 05:57 PM - Re: Door Locks? (kurt schrader)
17. 06:06 PM - Re: Flight to Alaska (Mike)
18. 06:52 PM - Re: Door Locks? (Noel Loveys)
19. 07:42 PM - Re: Door Locks? (Noel Loveys)
20. 07:42 PM - Re: RPM indicators for Rotax engines. (Mdkitfox@aol.com)
21. 07:49 PM - Re: Denmark. WAS: Kitfox website FAQ (84KF)
22. 08:05 PM - Re: Nose gear convertion for Classic IV, thanks (icaza francisco)
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 |
"(since the FAA neglected to define the term)"
But Mike,
Exactaly... We are first given a term, maximum take-off weight in 1.1., with
no definition, just as you state. So what do we need to do? Go to the FAADOT
publication that does give it, ..it will even takes you through the process of
why it is what it is. Why is the definition provided in the first place if
is allowed be ignored at will. It's the FAA They don't do that.
No, its not just commentery, and even if you believe it is, ok, it still explains,
demonstrates and proves the INTENT of the statement, They tell you what
it is , and why it is.
Its (the Final Rule) the... instructions, that explain the intent and reasoning
behind all decisions and rules, and you will see that the stated INTENT
is to limit Mass , thus Potential energy, when combined wiith a limiting speed
specification,.in aircraft to be flown by pilots using Sportpilot privilages.
This equation...(The empty weight + weight of full fuel regardless of actual.
etc etc), the definition..., solves the problem of the subject of weight.. Nothing
changes..., nothing is different, Perfect harmony all around.,absolutally
NO safery issue is involved, and no FAA reg is violated when its applied. There
are no contridictions to ANY other information provided.
And why would there be?
They considered all angles when they wrote the law. The FAA knew (understood)
that Experimental aircraft are not the same as, and therefor cannot, be regulated
as precise as, Type Certificated Aircraft So the limiting weight factor
they dicided on is a fits-all wonder. A wonderful work of logic that limits
exactally what they want, in a proper and fair way for ALL aircraft.
Again, all this is spelled ot in the Final Rule.
A Series 5, with a typical Empty weight, is now , even more, (always was )
a very very versatile aircraft. The Sport pilot will find that heshe can meet
the definition for MTOW quite nicely 2 normal persons, the weight of full tanks
considered , some cargo......look here, still way under 1320 lbs. Yet it has
a maximum proven design weight, that when properly assembled, will safely fly
weighing 1400 lbs This is good yes? would we rather the aircraft fall apart
at 1321lbs
You would read the FAA raised the weight to 1320 lbs to encourage commercial
development of more effecient airframeengine combinitations. That is fact.They
hope it does. Its their intention (Remember intention, intent...more later.)
If increased safety factors, such as lift to weight ratios increase, andor
stall speed decreases....its then working all as hoped and planned...as intended..
What if I get a 3rd class physical to supplement my valid PVT cert? (Biannual flight
review is current in a C-172 ) Now I want to carry more cargo, so Maximum
takeoff weight might go to , say, 1380 lbs.. All this is fine too
Now, heres the zinger .....
MY plane is still Phase One. MY plane has never excceded 1320 pounds at
takeoff, since it has been limited by the Operating Limitation, issued by the
FAA, to solo flight, naturally...., and Im not that big. Remember this fact
...It has NEVER exceeded 1320 lbs.at takeoff.
Therefor, according to Ask the Expert at EAA Mike, (sorry, his name IS Mike.
No pun intended.) MY Series 5 is eligible for use under Sportpilot privilages,
regardless of any so called Gross Weights, or any other term you want to use.
He, a (respected ) EAA editor has told my personally (landline) that until the
aircraft exceeds 1320 lbs at take off, its allowed and legal for sportpilot
privliges.. So for all who said go to the EAA, well, I did.
You will find his opinion on the web, EAA website Im not going to include a link
, but will provide it on request if you dont find it. Youll know it when ya
see it.
A few more comments...
While I can live with this for now.... I dont like it , Consider the fact that
it in conflict with much of what you you have been told by FAA reps, in all
flavors, and the media, such as popular mags amd professonal websites. Google
words like Lightsport, and sportpilot and read all the different ways they describe
what IS maximum takeoff weight. No two print the same, every one uses,
or substitutes different terms at will. Gross weight, maximum gross weight,
etc, etc...
Well, theres your problem....... (Mythbusters)
There is still the since original certification etc etc.. part of the rule to understand.
That was added to the Final rule for a very specific reason, and when
you read the intent, the reason why it was added, (Hint... it was added to
restrict the modification of Type Certificated aircraft. No more, no less.,
also with an excellent explanation of why.) Commentary..., or otherwis, it show
intent. Yet one cannot deny that its casual, common usage has been twisted
around.
Does it mean, or is the actual intent that... since original certification .....
the aircraft has never exceeded weight specs since it was new,? or...just
perhaps..., the aircraft CAN meet the definition in FAR 1.1 and always has
been able to since original certification... without modifications?
Read it..., think about it . Remember the intent of the wording, and the situation
actually being adressed at that time.
Now also consider that our maintence regs are , shall I say..., less restrictive...
then Type Cert aircraft, we are not bound to the same, (or any) airworthiness
standards. And since (again , as explained in the Final Rule) nothing
in maintenance privilges, (chough caugh..(modifications) caugh... ) etc, for
us has changed. Ergo you may ............
Is it, by intention..., (as explained in...yada yada) meant to limit us, along
with Type Certificated aircraft? Or..., just .Type Certificated aircraft
alone... well (IMHO) within their rights, and necessary to maintain high quality
and consistant standards anong other things. Intent...applied meaningfully,
with out bias. and in the proper context....... Opps, better not go there
Ill stop for now.. but willing to continue. Wouldnt want to beat it to death
ya know.
Just for the record, the FAA (as explained in Final Rule,) considers certification
of EXp-amateur built as the time (date) it recieves it Airworthiness Cert
from FAA Date of approval on the cert...something like that...
I really appreciate your interest
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=99222#99222
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: Kitfox website FAQ |
Steve,
I have to hand it to you, Well documented information there.
I cannot see why anyone could argue with that ?
Read my next post I made a mistake yesterday.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 8:47 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox website FAQ
"(since the FAA neglected to define the term)"
But Mike,
Exactaly... We are first given a term, ?omaximum take-off weight ?o in
1.1., with no definition, just as you state. So what do we need to do? Go to
the FAADOT publication that does give it, ..it will even takes you through
the process of why it is what it is. Why is the definition provided in the
first place if is allowed be ignored at will. It's the FAA They don't do
that.
No, it?Ts not just commentery, and even if you believe it is, ok, it
still explains, demonstrates and proves the INTENT of the statement, They
tell you what it is , and why it is.
It?Ts (the Final Rule) the... instructions, that explain the intent
and reasoning behind all decisions and rules, and you will see that the
stated INTENT is to limit Mass , thus Potential energy, when combined wiith
a limiting speed specification,.in aircraft to be flown by pilots using
Sportpilot privilages.
This equation...(The empty weight + weight of full fuel regardless of
actual. etc etc), the definition..., solves the problem of the subject of
weight.. Nothing changes..., nothing is different, Perfect harmony all
around.,absolutally NO safery issue is involved, and no FAA reg is violated
when it?Ts applied. There are no contridictions to ANY other information
provided.
And why would there be?
They considered all angles when they wrote the law. The FAA knew
(understood) that Experimental aircraft are not the same as, and therefor
cannot, be regulated as precise as, Type Certificated Aircraft So the
limiting weight factor they dicided on is a fits-all wonder. A wonderful
work of logic that limits exactally what they want, in a proper and fair way
for ALL aircraft.
Again, all this is spelled ot in the Final Rule.
A Series 5, with a typical Empty weight, is now , even more, (always
was ) a very very versatile aircraft. The Sport pilot will find that heshe
can meet the definition for ?oMTOW? quite nicely 2 normal persons, the
weight of full tanks considered , some cargo......look here, still way under
1320 lbs. Yet it has a maximum proven design weight, that when properly
assembled, will safely fly weighing 1400 lbs This is good yes? would we
rather the aircraft fall apart at 1321lbs
You would read the FAA raised the weight to 1320 lbs to encourage
commercial development of more effecient airframeengine combinitations. That
is fact.They hope it does. It?Ts their intention (Remember intention,
intent...more later.) If increased safety factors, such as lift to weight
ratios increase, andor stall speed decreases....it?Ts then working all as
hoped and planned...as intended..
What if I get a 3rd class physical to supplement my valid PVT cert?
(Biannual flight review is current in a C-172 ) Now I want to carry more
cargo, so Maximum takeoff weight might go to , say, 1380 lbs.. All this is
fine too
Now, here?Ts the zinger .....
MY plane is still Phase One. MY plane has never excceded 1320 pounds
at takeoff, since it has been limited by the Operating Limitation, issued
by the FAA, to solo flight, naturally...., and I?Tm not that big.
Remember this fact ...It has NEVER exceeded 1320 lbs.at takeoff.
Therefor, according to ?oAsk the Expert at EAA Mike?o, (sorry, his name
IS Mike. No pun intended.) MY Series 5 is eligible for use under Sportpilot
privilages, regardless of any so called ?oGross Weights, or any other term
you want to use. He, a (respected ) EAA editor has told my personally
(landline) that until the aircraft exceeds 1320 lbs at take off, it?Ts
allowed and legal for sportpilot privliges.. So for all who said ?ogo to
the EAA, well, I did.
You will find his ?oopinion? on the web, EAA website I?Tm not going to
include a link , but will provide it on request if you don?Tt find it.
You?Tll know it when ya see it.
A few more comments...
While I can live with this for now.... I don?~t like it , Consider the
fact that it in conflict with much of what you you have been ?otold? by
FAA reps, in all flavors, and the media, such as popular mags amd
professonal websites. ?oGoogle? words like ?oLightsport?, and
?osportpilot? and read all the different ways they describe what IS
?omaximum takeoff weight?. No two print the same, every one uses, or
substitutes different terms at will. Gross weight, maximum gross weight,
etc, etc...
Well, there?Ts your problem....... (Mythbusters)
There is still the ?osince original certification etc etc..? part of the
rule to understand. That was added to the Final rule for a very specific
reason, and when you read the intent, the reason why it was added, (Hint...
it was added to restrict the modification of Type Certificated? aircraft.
No more, no less., also with an excellent explanation of why.)
Commentary..., or otherwis, it show intent. Yet one cannot deny that
it?Ts casual, common usage has been twisted around.
Does it mean, or is the actual intent that... ?o since original
certification .....?o the aircraft has never exceeded weight specs since it
was new,? or...just perhaps..., ?othe aircraft CAN meet the definition in
FAR 1.1 and always has been able to ?osince original certification?...
without modifications?
Read it..., think about it . Remember the intent of the wording, and the
situation actually being adressed at that time.
Now also consider that our maintence regs are , shall I say..., less
restrictive... then Type Cert aircraft, we are not bound to the same, (or
any) airworthiness standards. And since (again , as explained in the Final
Rule) nothing in maintenance privilges, (chough caugh..(modifications)
caugh... ) etc, for us has changed. Ergo you may ............
Is it, by intention..., (as explained in...yada yada) meant to limit us,
along with Type Certificated aircraft? Or..., just .Type Certificated
aircraft alone... well (IMHO) within their rights, and necessary to
maintain high quality and consistant standards anong other things.
Intent...applied meaningfully, with out bias. and in the proper
context....... Opps, better not go there
I?Tll stop for now.. but willing to continue. Wouldn?Tt want to beat it
to death ya know.
Just for the record, the FAA (as explained in Final Rule,) considers ?o
certification? of EXp-amateur built as the time (date) it recieves it
Airworthiness Cert from FAA ?oDate of approval? on the cert...something
like that...
I really appreciate your interest
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=99222#99222
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 |
Ok guys I was in contact with higher ups yesterday and I made an error as
follows......
"Our Ultralight permit holders can fly a plane that has a higher gross but
> takeoff weight cannot exceed 1200lbs.
"
The aircraft must be registered as 1200 lbs gross weight for the above to be
in effect.
eg -- so a c-150 that has a gorss of 1500 lbs could be registered as a 1200
gross to hae a UL pilot to legally fly it.
-thus you would be limiting your aircraft for others at this point to not
exceed that 1200 gross weight -regardless of pilot's license.
Makes sense ?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Fisher" <d@cfisher.com>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 5:19 PM
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 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 |
I also need to make a correction.... My EAA guy was Joe., not Mike. Joe. That should
make it easier.
sorry
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=99228#99228
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 website FAQ |
I also need to make a correction. My EAA guy is named Joe. Not mike, Joe.
Sorry.
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=99234#99234
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: Kitfox website FAQ |
Just to add some fuel when a long-lasting discussion is fading out! :-)
If you think you have problems with the interpretation of the US Sport Pilot rule,
imagine that each State in the US had its own version of the said rule.
That's what we have in Europe. I need a helmet in Norway, which I can remove when
in Sweden but I have to descend to 3,500 feet and can't have more than 30 liters
fuel when reaching Denmark.
Regarding MTOW, UK says that it has to be maximum 450 kg, as given by the manufacturer.
Norway, on the other hand, will take that with a grain of salt, arguing
that it is, anyway, the PIC responsibility not to exceed that weight, whatever
the conditions. On the other hand, Norway won't give a license to a homebuilt
aircraft that has an empty weight over 275 kg, because they reckon that you
can't add a passenger and fuel and still be under 450 kg. So, people buy "homebuilt"
Sky Arrows or Super Petrel, which they trim down to say 270 kg; get the
license, then screw on all kind of gadgets and fly with passengers well above
the 450 kg MTOW mark ... until they meet an inspection.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Kitfox website FAQ |
"...can't have more than 30 liters fuel when reaching Denmark."
It this a tax issue, or do they make it such that you now have to now buy gas
in Denmark just going again?
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=99244#99244
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 |
|
Any way to zero out the smells of the engine on a tri Gear Series 5, ,
it reminds of the old days of a J-3 Cub 50 years ago.....these smells
come and go, Dean ann7ddt@msn.com<mailto:ann7ddt@msn.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 |
|
"...it reminds of the old days of a J-3 Cub 50 years ago."
Sorry Dean,
I know you have a serious question that need s a correct response..., that I can't
give...
But I can't resist and if I don't say it someone else would.
Can you bottle or package that smell. You'll get rich.
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=99321#99321
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 |
|
All,
I envision taking my 'Fox to places where I want to leave it sit on the
ramp unattended for a while. Is a locking mechanism for the KitFox IV
doors already invented? Does someone have plans, or is there an
aftermarket device? I've studied it, and don't want to re-invent the
wheel if I don't have to.
Best,
Nick
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 |
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 10:05 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox website FAQ
> Just to add some fuel when a long-lasting discussion is fading out! :-)
> If you think you have problems with the interpretation of the US Sport
> Pilot rule, imagine that each State in the US had its own version of the
> said rule.
>
I expect that in some way, they DO have that. In any area you are more or
less subject to the interpretation of the local FSDO.
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: | Denmark. WAS: Kitfox website FAQ |
On Mar 7, 2007, at 3:30 PM, 84KF wrote:
>> "...can't have more than 30 liters fuel when reaching Denmark."
> It this a tax issue, or do they make it such that you now have to
> now buy gas in Denmark just going again?
I don't know, Steve. When you fly a European ultralight ( not the US
ultralight rule but more equivalent to the US Sport Pilot) into
Denmark, you have to seek a permission. It is written that foreign as
Danish ultralights are limited by 3,500 ft altitude and 30 litres fuel.
I guess the latter is to limit damages in case of collision and fire
but I am not sure. In any case, I flew twice over Denmark with full
tanks and ... without stopping there. I thought they won't stop me in
mid-air to check my fuel tanks! :-)
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 |
|
Hi Nick,
A trick I used and it works well, is to dispense with any knobs outside
the door and just insert a home made key bent in a "L"shape out of 1/8
round stock. Put it on your key chain and just place it in the slot on the
outside, engaging the hole on the striker and slide it back. Works great
and would take someone with "ill intent" a while to figure out. Recently, I
added a cover over the slot to further foil evil doers. It's just a 1 inch
X 3/8 inch piece of light aluminum flashing, ends rounded, with a
rivet in one end. Turn it down outa the way, insert your homegrown key,
and WALA! , the door she has opened!
Regards, Floyd
> [Original Message]
> From: Nick Scholtes <Nick@Scholtes1.com>
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 3/7/2007 4:44:47 PM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Door Locks?
>
>
> All,
>
> I envision taking my 'Fox to places where I want to leave it sit on the
> ramp unattended for a while. Is a locking mechanism for the KitFox IV
> doors already invented? Does someone have plans, or is there an
> aftermarket device? I've studied it, and don't want to re-invent the
> wheel if I don't have to.
>
> Best,
>
> Nick
>
>
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 |
|
I went to the aviation dept. at home base and got a lock with a lever, for a cabinet,
and put it on the door when locked it holds the door to the fuse. On the
other door I put a bolt in the lock mechanism, I have one in each door to keep
them both from opening in flight, held in place with mech. wire. Next time
I'm at the plane I'll take some pics.
--------
kitfoxmike
model IV, 1200
speedster
912ul
Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=99357#99357
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 |
|
I also have the Tool Box type key lock with the swinging arm. Mine are on
both sides, with same key..I'll try to remember to take photos too..
Todd Leiss
Model IV Speedster
Merritt Island, FL
> [Original Message]
> From: kitfoxmike <customtrans@qwest.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 3/7/2007 6:42:43 PM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Door Locks?
>
>
> I went to the aviation dept. at home base and got a lock with a lever,
for a cabinet, and put it on the door when locked it holds the door to the
fuse. On the other door I put a bolt in the lock mechanism, I have one in
each door to keep them both from opening in flight, held in place with
mech. wire. Next time I'm at the plane I'll take some pics.
>
> --------
> kitfoxmike
> model IV, 1200
> speedster
> 912ul
> Do not archive
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=99357#99357
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I installed my door latch with bolts that go thru the
frame and door skin. These bolts have hex heads, so a
hex-key on my key-ring works. Not foolproof, but a
deterant to those not too mechanically enclined.
I worry about crash crew/first on sceen responders
being able to open the doors without some tool in case
of an accident where I am not able to open from the
inside. Comments? I am sure a determined person will
get a KitFox's door open.
Had a friend with a Tri-Champ (Nose gear under the
rear seat) who's plane was borken into. Caused $400
damage to the door in order to steal a $30 CB radio.
The door was not locked! Apparently the thief
couldn't even operate a Champ door handle???
Kurt S.
--- Nick Scholtes <Nick@Scholtes1.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> I envision taking my 'Fox to places where I want to
> leave it sit on the
> ramp unattended for a while. Is a locking mechanism
> for the KitFox IV
> doors already invented? Does someone have plans, or
> is there an
> aftermarket device? I've studied it, and don't want
> to re-invent the wheel if I don't have to.
>
> Best,
>
> Nick
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
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: Flight to Alaska |
That's exactly what our Chief pilot said. BTW he was flying Cessna
185's, Beavers, and so on, along with Twin Otters and BT67's. He has
17000 hours as PIC. He also flew up and down the Alcan at least
several times a year. Most recently within the last four years. I
tend to think he knows what he is talking about.
On Mar 7, 2007, at 1:07 AM, Larry/Cathy Boone wrote:
> There is always the highway itself if push comes to shove.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ted Palamarek
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:56 AM
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Flight to Alaska
>
> Mike
>
>
> Your statement =93there are no landing fields=94 is absolutely untrue.
> The Alaska Highway route is very well developed with all sorts of
> facilities available for small aircraft to make the trip from
> Alberta to Alaska. Just ask John King, Stan Specht and a host of
> other fellows who have made the trip. I have spent 15 years in the
> lat 60=92s and early 70=92s installing air to ground, ILS, VOR/DME at
> all the sites up and down the Highway. I really get peeved when
> some one just makes a statement without finding out the facts. You
> pilot probably flew commercial from Anchorage to Seattle and never
> saw the Highway.
>
>
> Ted
>
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-
> list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
> Sent: March 4, 2007 7:02 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Flight to Alaska
>
>
> Steve,
>
>
> Let me chime in also. My Chief Pilot has spent over 12 years in
> Alaska, although he has been in the lower 48 for the last several
> years. He told me that the only way to fly the is to follow the
> Alcan. There are NO landing fields, and you have to land on the
> highway. The services are minimal...basically just fuel. He
> always kept the road in sight, so that if you have a problem you
> have a place to land. Flying over water should only be done on
> floats, as there are NO landing strips.
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2007, at 10:30 AM, Paul Seehafer wrote:
>
>
> Steve,
>
>
> There's a guy that wrote a two part article for Water Flying
> magazine about flying his Lake Amphibian to alaska using the route
> you are considering. It is titled "Journey on the inside
> passage", but the subtitle is "Not for novices, nor the faint of
> heart". Knowing this guy has done this trip for years in his lake
> might offer you some tremendous advice. His name is Richard
> Pellerin. He is a FAA medical examiner (previously a Green Beret
> and Navy seal fwiw), and has an occuapational website at
> www.faamed.com where I'm sure you could contact him.
>
>
> I love his quote on the site; "Just remember, if you're not living
> on the edge, you're taking up too much space".
>
>
> Paul Seehafer
>
> Central Wisconsin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Steve Zakreski
>
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 7:21 AM
>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Flight to Alaska
>
>
> For those of you familiar with the West coast and Alaska=85
>
>
> It looks like I=92m ferrying an aircraft for one of our members from
> Seattle to Anchorage sometime in the next few months. The safe
> (but long) route for me to take is inland, up the Alaska Highway.
> Has anyone flown the coastal route? Am I likely to get 3 clear
> days to fly this route in late April and May? I bet it will be
> pretty.
>
>
> SteveZ
>
> Calgary
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://
> www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://
> forums.matronics.com
> - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - class="Apple-converted-
> space"> --> http://forums.matronics.com
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://
> www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://
> forums.matronics.com
> ========================
> ========================
>
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 |
|
These are very light built planes not bank vaults.... If thieves will break
in through the window of a car don't kid yourself thinking that any lock on
a fabric plane will keep them out.
Never leave the keys in the ignition, come to think of it never leave
anything in the plane (GPS or portable radios) and leave the doors open.
Also when possible park in a secure area.
A Lock is only to tell an honest man there is no one home.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Floyd Johnson
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 7:44 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Door Locks?
>
>
> <kitfox69@earthlink.net>
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> A trick I used and it works well, is to dispense with any
> knobs outside
> the door and just insert a home made key bent in a "L"shape out of 1/8
> round stock. Put it on your key chain and just place it in
> the slot on the
> outside, engaging the hole on the striker and slide it back.
> Works great
> and would take someone with "ill intent" a while to figure
> out. Recently, I
> added a cover over the slot to further foil evil doers. It's
> just a 1 inch
> X 3/8 inch piece of light aluminum flashing, ends rounded, with a
> rivet in one end. Turn it down outa the way, insert your
> homegrown key,
> and WALA! , the door she has opened!
>
> Regards, Floyd
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Nick Scholtes <Nick@Scholtes1.com>
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > Date: 3/7/2007 4:44:47 PM
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Door Locks?
> >
> <Nick@Scholtes1.com>
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I envision taking my 'Fox to places where I want to leave
> it sit on the
> > ramp unattended for a while. Is a locking mechanism for
> the KitFox IV
> > doors already invented? Does someone have plans, or is there an
> > aftermarket device? I've studied it, and don't want to
> re-invent the
> > wheel if I don't have to.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
I have seen the result of thieves stealing a stereo out of a Cadillac. The
quickest way, the method they used was to plug an electric chainsaw into the
power outlet and remove the part of the dash they wanted.
The mistake your friend made was leaving the CB in the plane. If they had
any trouble removing it they could have done a lot more damage. Imagine if
they didn't know the Kitfox door was hinged at the top...
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> kurt schrader
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 10:26 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Door Locks?
>
>
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> I installed my door latch with bolts that go thru the
> frame and door skin. These bolts have hex heads, so a
> hex-key on my key-ring works. Not foolproof, but a
> deterant to those not too mechanically enclined.
>
> I worry about crash crew/first on sceen responders
> being able to open the doors without some tool in case
> of an accident where I am not able to open from the
> inside. Comments? I am sure a determined person will
> get a KitFox's door open.
>
> Had a friend with a Tri-Champ (Nose gear under the
> rear seat) who's plane was borken into. Caused $400
> damage to the door in order to steal a $30 CB radio.
> The door was not locked! Apparently the thief
> couldn't even operate a Champ door handle???
>
> Kurt S.
>
> --- Nick Scholtes <Nick@Scholtes1.com> wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > I envision taking my 'Fox to places where I want to
> > leave it sit on the
> > ramp unattended for a while. Is a locking mechanism
> > for the KitFox IV
> > doors already invented? Does someone have plans, or
> > is there an
> > aftermarket device? I've studied it, and don't want
> > to re-invent the wheel if I don't have to.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Nick
>
>
>
> Bored stiff? Loosen up...
> Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
> http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
>
>
>
>
>
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: RPM indicators for Rotax engines. |
In a message dated 2/8/2007 7:20:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
torgemor@online.no writes:
Hi Rick,
Find the type of instrument that you have, P/N or model then find the
current setup at Wesberg site here:
I'll think that your tachometer is of the kind that need separate power
supply, or is a combined type that can use only pulse signal, or pulse
with own (steady) power.
Here's the link to Wesberg:
http://www.westach.com/
Good luck.
Torgeir.
Torgeir,
Thanks for responding. Sorry it's taken so long for me to respond back.
Here's what I found.
My tach was from a company other than Wesburg. With help from Lockwood, I
learned terminals 2 and 3 are for the tach wires from the engine, In addition
one of those wires also gets grounded (your choice, 2 or 3) and finally the
other terminal, number 1 goes to 12 VDC power.
Thanks for your help!
Rick
Series V Speedster - N39RW
DO NOT ARCHIVE
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
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: | Re: Denmark. WAS: Kitfox website FAQ |
I guess the latter is to limit damages in case of collision
Michel,
Ill bet that's right.... sounds like its another case of a need to limit total
mass at a particular time and place. less mass, less energy..., less potential
damage to other persons and property. All well and proper, maybe not generous.
Ill wager 6.00 Danish Krone ( about the price of a small beer I understand...??)
that it has to do (now that I thought it over ) with the need to arrive
below a minimum total weight to comply with that countries maximum weight limit
for takeoff
The FAA here used uses what is called the Concensus Standards (outside sources,
group discussion and research ) to determine the limiting parameters of specific
issues such as stall speed etc., Its my understand that this is , or is
to be, across the board international standards that would help in the development
of new comercial manufactured, and then regulated (LSA type) aircraft that
would make inport and export more simple for manufactures here and abroad.
Each country might still have its own actual flight rules, but common aircraft
standards wouldshouldwill allow for a consistent means of determining compliance
potential
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=99395#99395
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: Nose gear convertion for Classic IV, thanks |
Thanks very much to Eric, Jimmie, Dan and David for
your posts about nose gear convertion.
I appreciate very much.
Francisco Icaza, Mexico City.
--- Eric <iworonko@cox.net> escribi:
> <iworonko@cox.net>
>
> Hi Francisco,
> the brake line fittings on Grove gear point towards
> the tail. I did a nose
> gear conversion on my Speedster and nothing had to
> be bent to make it fit.
> You can see some pictures of the conversion at
> http://new.photos.yahoo.com/irus58/albums
> Eric
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________
La mejor conexin a Internet y <b >2GB</b> extra a tu correo por $100 al mes. http://net.yahoo.com.mx
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! --
|