Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:52 AM - Re: Rotax 582 failure (semi off-topic) (Bob)
2. 03:31 AM - Re: Rotax 582 failure (semi off-topic) (Dave G.)
3. 06:15 AM - Re: Gross Weight Question (Randy Daughenbaugh)
4. 10:21 AM - Re: spray painting (Guy Buchanan)
5. 01:32 PM - Re: Gross Weight Question - Data Plate (jdmcbean)
6. 02:22 PM - Maximum Takeoff Weight is not Gross weight..... period. (Flyersteve)
7. 03:53 PM - Re: Maximum Takeoff Weight is not Gross weight..... period. (Jose M. Toro)
8. 04:13 PM - Re: spray painting (Dan Billingsley)
9. 05:30 PM - Re: gas cap not venting? (Noel Loveys)
10. 05:41 PM - Re: Maximum Takeoff Weight is not Gross weight..... period. (kirk hull)
11. 06:46 PM - Re: KitFox wheel base? (Noel Loveys)
12. 07:57 PM - Re: Brakes little to none (Noel Loveys)
13. 08:19 PM - Re: Re: Gross Weight Question (Guy Buchanan)
14. 08:22 PM - Re: Rotax 912UL for sale (Noel Loveys)
15. 08:42 PM - Re: Brakes little to none (Lynn Matteson)
16. 09:13 PM - Brake Plumbing (Andy Fultz)
17. 09:15 PM - Re: Re: Gross Weight Question (Randy Daughenbaugh)
18. 09:37 PM - Re: Maximum Takeoff Weight is not Gross weight..... period. (Guy Buchanan)
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: Rotax 582 failure (semi off-topic) |
Michel -
The "classic" signs for typical bearing failures are pretty easy to find through
a Google search, but it's easy to get mis-led, kind of like trying to use the
web to diagnose a medical condition. I've looked at many failed bearings and
it takes personally looking at it closely under magnification. You might see
if you have degreed mechanical or metallurgical engineers in your area to ask.
Bob
--------
Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=113719#113719
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: Rotax 582 failure (semi off-topic) |
It's hard to tell from the photo. It looks like there is a small spot of
rust on the crankshaft web in that cylinder. (Seen just above the arrow) If
that cylinder was open for an extended period of non running and had not
been properly sealed and lubed for storage it's likely that moisture also
got to the bearings. They just will not last with rust pitting.
It's too bad the fellow had not had the crank replaced when the engine was
service close to the overhaul point of 300 hours.
Dave Goddard- Mod IV 1050/582
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 5:18 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Rotax 582 failure (semi off-topic)
> Gentlemen, this is not Kitfox business but since many of us fly behind
> a 582, I wonder if you could have a look at this.
> My friend flying an Avid Flyer lost his 582 in flight, as I said
> earlier. His engine is old, from 1990, it has a total of 340 hours but
> it has been serviced in 2002, including new crankshaft bearing, when
> the engine had 280 hours.
> Inspection of the engine by a Rotax mechanic shows that the aft
> cylinder conrod roller bearing was completely destroyed. The conrod was
> loosen from the crankshaft and the sump showed several cracks. The
> forward cylinder and conrod showed no damage and everything else was
> moving and well oiled. Here is a photo of the opened engine. Has anyone
> an idea of what could have gone wrong because the Norwegian mechanic
> has not a clue. Thanks in advance.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel Verheughe
> Norway
> Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
>
> do not archive
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: | Gross Weight Question |
Lowell,
I thought it was, but some investigation led me to the conclusion that it is
NOT a requirement. It is a field on some - but not all - of the data plates
that you can buy.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Gross Weight Question
My max gross wt is on the data plate. Is that a current requirement?
Lowell Fitt
Cameron Park, CA
Model IV-1200 R-912 UL Warp
1998 850 hrs.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 4:12 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Gross Weight Question
> <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
>
> Nick,
> I believe that you are right. Nothing the FAA has says what the gross
> weight for your plane.
>
> BUT, you need to have weight and balance info in your plane in case you
> have
> a ramp inspection. That says what the gross weight is. I think that
> there
> is another place in YOUR paper work that is supposed to state the gross
> weight.
>
> Now you should get some corrections of what I said.
>
> Randy Daughenbaugh, N10NH
> Black Hills of South Dakota, - Near Mount Rushmore
> Home Strip, Grass Room in Hangar for visitors
> Series 5/7 (7 Firewall Forward) 912S, Warp Drive Taper Tip
> Gross Weight 1320 lbs, Flying since November 2004
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nick Scholtes
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 4:44 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Gross Weight Question
>
>
> Randy wrote:
>
> My Series 5 qualifies for Sport pilot. I assigned the gross weight a value
>
> of 1320 lbs. As builder, I can do that.
>
>
> Nick now writes:
>
> I purchased a KitFox in January. Prior to buying it, I contacted the FAA
> and had them send me, on a CD, all of the paperwork that they had on file
> for the airplane. This included all of the airworthiness certificate
> applications, a copy of the airworthiness certificate itself, the
> operating
> limitations, the registration, etc. etc. etc. Bunch of paperwork.
>
> NOWHERE in all of that paperwork was there any mention of the gross weight
> of the aircraft.
>
> I asked the builder about that, and he said, "Well, everybody just knows
> that the gross weight of a Model IV-1200 is 1200 lbs." I said, "Sure, but
> where does it actually SAY that?" He didn't know.
>
> So, my question is, where is the gross weight of an experimental aircraft
> actually stated or assigned? I was under the impression that the DAR
> needed
> to approve the gross weight that is requested, but there is no evidence in
> the paperwork that he did that. What am I missing?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Nick Scholtes
>
>
>
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: spray painting |
At 06:03 AM 5/16/2007, you wrote:
>I'm getting ready to primer my elevator trim tab and was curious if
>anyone had found a way to paint over a piano hinge without gooping it up?
I did absolutely nothing preventative and it worked fine. I painted
both halves separately, took moderate care to not spray inside, and
it re-assembled and worked great.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: | Gross Weight Question - Data Plate |
Manufacture, Model and Serial Number are the only requirements for the data
plate.. We are working on a Kitfox specific data plate with only those 3
items.
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
208.337.5111
www.kitfoxaircraft.com
"It's not how Fast... It's how Fun!"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Gross Weight Question
My max gross wt is on the data plate. Is that a current requirement?
Lowell Fitt
Cameron Park, CA
Model IV-1200 R-912 UL Warp
1998 850 hrs.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 4:12 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Gross Weight Question
> <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
>
> Nick,
> I believe that you are right. Nothing the FAA has says what the gross
> weight for your plane.
>
> BUT, you need to have weight and balance info in your plane in case you
> have
> a ramp inspection. That says what the gross weight is. I think that
> there
> is another place in YOUR paper work that is supposed to state the gross
> weight.
>
> Now you should get some corrections of what I said.
>
> Randy Daughenbaugh, N10NH
> Black Hills of South Dakota, - Near Mount Rushmore
> Home Strip, Grass Room in Hangar for visitors
> Series 5/7 (7 Firewall Forward) 912S, Warp Drive Taper Tip
> Gross Weight 1320 lbs, Flying since November 2004
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nick Scholtes
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 4:44 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Gross Weight Question
>
>
> Randy wrote:
>
> My Series 5 qualifies for Sport pilot. I assigned the gross weight a value
>
> of 1320 lbs. As builder, I can do that.
>
>
> Nick now writes:
>
> I purchased a KitFox in January. Prior to buying it, I contacted the FAA
> and had them send me, on a CD, all of the paperwork that they had on file
> for the airplane. This included all of the airworthiness certificate
> applications, a copy of the airworthiness certificate itself, the
> operating
> limitations, the registration, etc. etc. etc. Bunch of paperwork.
>
> NOWHERE in all of that paperwork was there any mention of the gross weight
> of the aircraft.
>
> I asked the builder about that, and he said, "Well, everybody just knows
> that the gross weight of a Model IV-1200 is 1200 lbs." I said, "Sure, but
> where does it actually SAY that?" He didn't know.
>
> So, my question is, where is the gross weight of an experimental aircraft
> actually stated or assigned? I was under the impression that the DAR
> needed
> to approve the gross weight that is requested, but there is no evidence in
> the paperwork that he did that. What am I missing?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Nick Scholtes
>
>
3:50 PM
3:50 PM
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: | Maximum Takeoff Weight is not Gross weight..... period. |
"Maximum Takeoff Weight" as it applies to sport pilots is not the same as "Gross
weight" as many of you believe and as others attempt to read into the FAR
1.1 definition.
All I am going to say here on this site is if you really want to learn and understand
this issue, you must read the "bible" on light-sport/sportpilot rules....,
found at the following link.
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_rule.pdf
If you wish to learn more , in an open and casual atmosphere, vist this site..., http://www.avidfoxflyers.com/ , look aroud, and feel free to post your comments andor questions.
Or you may keep reading the same old b.s. information on the issue here.
Steve 84KF http://www.avidfoxflyers.com/
..and flying a Series 5/912UL under sportpilot privilages.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=113770#113770
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: Maximum Takeoff Weight is not Gross weight..... period. |
Steve:
Your mean tone on your e-mail motivated me to do some research. After verifying
the "bible" (the AOPA link), I found that term gross weight is not specified
anywhere in the sport pilot final rule. The rule is specified in terms of MTOW
(max takeoff weight).
The airplanes, however, are certified with a gross weight. I verified the EAA
site, and found that all the airplanes that meet the definition of light-sport
aircrafts (S-LSA,E-LSA,E-51% and standard category) have been certified with
a gross weight equal to or less than 1320 pounds.
It is my undestanding based on this information that, from the airplane point of
view, the gross weight and the MTOW is the same. If your Model V was certified
with a gross weight that does not exceed 1320 pounds, you can legally fly
it under the sport pilot privileges. Otherwise, you can't legally fly it under
sport pilot privileges. As simple as that!!! All this information applies
exclusively to land aircrafts (numbers are different for seaplanes).
If somebody (specially a CFI or DPE) understands that this information is wrong,
please specify the section of the regulation that clarifies it.
Respectfully,
Jos Toro
ex KFII-582
----- Original Message ----
From: Flyersteve <flyersteve@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 5:21:34 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Maximum Takeoff Weight is not Gross weight..... period.
"Maximum Takeoff Weight" as it applies to sport pilots is not the same as "Gross
weight" as many of you believe and as others attempt to read into the FAR
1.1 definition.
All I am going to say here on this site is if you really want to learn and understand
this issue, you must read the "bible" on light-sport/sportpilot rules....,
found at the following link.
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_rule.pdf
If you wish to learn more , in an open and casual atmosphere, vist this site..., http://www.avidfoxflyers.com/ , look aroud, and feel free to post your comments andor questions.
Or you may keep reading the same old b.s. information on the issue here.
Steve 84KF http://www.avidfoxflyers.com/
..and flying a Series 5/912UL under sportpilot privilages.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=113770#113770
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
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: spray painting |
Thanks for the ideas to all who responded.
Dan
Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com> wrote:
At 06:03 AM 5/16/2007, you wrote:
>I'm getting ready to primer my elevator trim tab and was curious if
>anyone had found a way to paint over a piano hinge without gooping it up?
I did absolutely nothing preventative and it worked fine. I painted
both halves separately, took moderate care to not spray inside, and
it re-assembled and worked great.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: | gas cap not venting? |
It would be very easy to use steel brake line and mig weld it into
place.
My slightly flared chrome plated copper tube soldered quite nicely into
place and is quite rugged but I don't think I'll be reaming on it just
to
see if it can take the punishment. Steel can be soldered brazed or
welded
into place as it's not a structural part I expect it's well within the
capability of most to fabricate. If you're not too sure of your
welding
skills (like me) you could have it welded easily at a commercial welding
shop.
Noel Loveys, RPP, AME intern
Campbellton, Newfoundland,
Canada
Kitfox Mod III-A, 582, B box, Ivo IFA
Aerocet 1100s
<mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca> noelloveys@yahoo.ca
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry West
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: gas cap not venting?
On my Model IV the tube is steel, may be stainless but probably plated
after
welding along with the cap. And it is welded, I can remove and/or
tighten
the cap by torqueing the tube and see the weld bead. It is not
soldered.
Barry West
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel <mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca> Loveys
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 6:43 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: gas cap not venting?
Mal are you sure the tube is stainless? it may be chrome plated copper
tube
soldered not welded into the cap. I bought a regular cap last year
removed
all the plastic stuff and the sealing gasket inside, drilled a hole in
it
and soldered in a chrome plated copper tube normally used as a toilet
feed
stem. when I was finished I cut the tube to length and bent it forward
into
the airflow. Of course I re installed the gasket.
Noel Loveys, RPP, AME intern
Campbellton, Newfoundland,
Canada
Kitfox Mod III-A, 582, B box, Ivo IFA
Aerocet 1100s
<mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca> noelloveys@yahoo.ca
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Malcolmbru@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 8:32 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: gas cap not venting?
wear can I find another gas cap? mine are made by Eaton with a stainless
steel tub welded to it. mal
_____
See what's free at AOL.com
<http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
href
"http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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: | Maximum Takeoff Weight is not Gross weight..... period. |
Your statements are correct. The term Max takeoff weight originally came
from large transport aircraft that could takeoff heaver then they could land
because they would burn off thousands of bounds of fuel on a long trip.
>From my discussions with the FAA folks during the creation of the new rule,
I think that this term was used to prevent any confusion as to takeoff
,landing, gross weight.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jose M. Toro
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Maximum Takeoff Weight is not Gross weight.....
period.
Steve:
Your mean tone on your e-mail motivated me to do some research. After
verifying the "bible" (the AOPA link), I found that term gross weight is not
specified anywhere in the sport pilot final rule. The rule is specified in
terms of MTOW (max takeoff weight).
The airplanes, however, are certified with a gross weight. I verified the
EAA site, and found that all the airplanes that meet the definition of
light-sport aircrafts (S-LSA,E-LSA,E-51% and standard category) have been
certified with a gross weight equal to or less than 1320 pounds.
It is my undestanding based on this information that, from the airplane
point of view, the gross weight and the MTOW is the same. If your Model V
was certified with a gross weight that does not exceed 1320 pounds, you can
legally fly it under the sport pilot privileges. Otherwise, you can't
legally fly it under sport pilot privileges. As simple as that!!! All this
information applies exclusively to land aircrafts (numbers are different for
seaplanes).
If somebody (specially a CFI or DPE) understands that this information is
wrong, please specify the section of the regulation that clarifies it.
Respectfully,
Jos Toro
ex KFII-582
----- Original Message ----
From: Flyersteve <flyersteve@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 5:21:34 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Maximum Takeoff Weight is not Gross weight.....
period.
"Maximum Takeoff Weight" as it applies to sport pilots is not the same as
"Gross weight" as many of you believe and as others attempt to read into the
FAR 1.1 definition.
All I am going to say here on this site is if you really want to learn
and understand this issue, you must read the "bible" on
light-sport/sportpilot rules...., found at the following link.
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_rule.pdf
If you wish to learn more , in an open and casual atmosphere, vist this
site..., http://www.avidfoxflyers.com/ , look aroud, and feel free to post
your comments andor questions.
Or you may keep reading the same old b.s. information on the issue here.
Steve 84KF http://www.avidfoxflyers.com/
..and flying a Series 5/912UL under sportpilot privilages.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=113770#113770
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
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: | KitFox wheel base? |
I only trailered my plane once on the donuts. I took this picture when
I
was still figuring out all the complexities of how to strap the plane to
the
trailer.
The trailer itself is a single axel double snowmobile trailer which has
been
home modified with a seven foot extension to the tow bar which has a
channel
installed on the top of it for the tail wheel to roll in while loading
and
to support a vertical stand, not in the photo, which fits under the
mounting
nut for the tail wheel spring. The tail wheel spring is then tied to
the
rear corners of the trailer platform and down and forward to the hand
winch.
Tied fairly tight three ways it cannot move!
The main deck of the trailer has wheel blocks bolted right through the
deck
that positions the aircraft and works to trap the main gear against the
loading ramps (2) which fold back and are tied to trap the main gear.
The
aircraft is positioned so the CG is roughly right over the trailer
wheels
with the wings folded.
Using this system it only takes about ten minutes to load and tie down
the
plane. The trick is to open the wings before starting to load and to
manually put the tail wheel up on the trailer where the tail wheel can
be
attached to the hand winch which will pull the plane aboard the trailer.
Then trap the main gear with the ramps (heavy hinges welded to deck of
trailer for ramps) and tie the ramps in the up position. Lift the tail
and
insert the support under the tail spring, tighten the winch slightly
and
then install two guy ties which will go from the tail spring to the
corners
of the trailer deck. Load the turtle deck and gas in the car and you're
ready to go!
One modification I was considering was a box bolted to the deck to carry
gas
cans for the plane. I use "ratchet" style tie downs for the main gear
traps
and the tail "guy ties". Four ties does the whole thing.
One other quick note about trailering the plane back on.... always tie
the
wings closed as well as use the closure supports that attach to the base
of
the vertical stab. Having one of those little clips come off on the
highway
is not an option! Always use an elevator lock when towing too.
Noel Loveys, RPP, AME intern
Campbellton, Newfoundland,
Canada
Kitfox Mod III-A, 582, B box, Ivo IFA
Aerocet 1100s
<mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca> noelloveys@yahoo.ca
Do not archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> john oakley
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 6:01 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: KitFox wheel base?
>
>
>
> Don,
> I have trailered my speedster on a 14 foot dual axel
> snowmobile trailer nose
> first several thousand miles. I would rather tow tail first
> but on 14 foot,
> you have to put prop over the tongue. Duel axel is best for chuck hole
> support the lighter the spring system is the better 500 miles
> is no big deal
> just watch for the big holes and ledges. Make sure there is
> no fuel on board
> and use the wing outer spar braces. If you intend to tow a
> lot, I would make
> a support for the tail tow inserts. I did see one fox break
> in front of the
> tail, but that is one out of how many?
>
> John Oakley
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don G
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:19 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: KitFox wheel base?
>
>
> Gents...first, I want to thank all the fellas who responded
> to my earlier
> questions on the wings. Absolutely wonderful data!
>
> Next question is...what is the length of a Kitfox between the
> mains and the
> tail wheel?
> IN other words, how long of a trailer deck is needed to haul
> a KitFox Series
> IV speedster?
> Also, is it recommended to trailer a KitFox with the tail
> weight sitting on
> the tail wheel when folded?
> for 500 miles?
> or is there some other method of supporting the wings?
> OR supporting the rear of the fuse?
> Will the front attachment fitting on the wings take this also?
>
> Thx in advance !
>
> --------
> Don G.
> Central Illinois
> FireFly#098
> Luscombe 8A
>
> http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=113363#113363
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Brakes little to none |
Under powered or over propped ... Doesn't sound like your Jab....
Perhaps you just have good brakes.... that's my best bet.
No brakes on my floats, which should be getting wet any day now!
Noel Loveys, RPP, AME intern
Campbellton, Newfoundland,
Canada
Kitfox Mod III-A, 582, B box, Ivo IFA
Aerocet 1100s
<mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca> noelloveys@yahoo.ca
Do not archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Lynn Matteson
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 5:58 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Brakes little to none
>
>
>
> I can hold my plane still with full throttle....so I'm either under-
> powered, over-propped, or over-braked. :)
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Grass Lake, Michigan
> Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
> flying w/275+ hrs
> do not archive
>
> On May 18, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Steve Zakreski wrote:
>
> <szakreski@shaw.ca>
> >
> > So you know how the brakes "should" behave when fixed...
> > My 1998 Classic IV with NSI engine (830 lbs), with Matco brakes.
> > I can stand the aircraft on it's nose (and almost have a
> few times)
> > if I
> > apply too much brake on landing. So something is amiss.
> >
> > SteveZ
> > Classic IV/NSI/CAP
> > Calgary
>
>
>
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: Gross Weight Question |
At 10:15 PM 5/18/2007, you wrote:
>My max gross wt is on the data plate. Is that a current requirement?
From FAR 45:
=A7 45.11 General.
(a) Aircraft and aircraft engines. Aircraft
covered under =A721.182 of this chapter must be
identified, and each person who manufacturers an
aircraft engine under a type or production
certificate shall identify that engine, by means
of a fireproof plate that has the information
specified in =A745.13 of this part marked on it by
etching, stamping, engraving, or other approved
method of fireproof marking. . . .
=A7 45.13 Identification data.
(a) The identification required by =A745.11 (a) and
(b) shall include the following information:
(1) Builder's name.
(2) Model designation.
(3) Builder's serial number.
(4) Type certificate number, if any.
(5) Production certificate number, if any.
(6) For aircraft engines, the established rating.
(7) On or after January 1, 1984, for aircraft
engines specified in part 34 of this chapter, the
date of manufacture as defined in =A734.1 of that
part, and a designation, approved by the
Administrator of the FAA, that indicates
compliance with the applicable exhaust emission
provisions of part 34 and 40 CFR part 87.
Approved designations include COMPLY, EXEMPT, and NON-US as appropriate.
(i) The designation COMPLY indicates that the
engine is in compliance with all of the
applicable exhaust emissions provisions of part
34. For any engine with a rated thrust in excess
of 26.7 kilonewtons (6000 pounds) which is not
used or intended for use in commercial operations
and which is in compliance with the applicable
provisions of part 34, but does not comply with
the hydrocarbon emissions standard of =A734.21(d),
the statement =93May not be used as a commercial
aircraft engine=94 must be noted in the permanent
powerplant record that accompanies the engine at
the time of manufacture of the engine.
(ii) The designation EXEMPT indicates that the
engine has been granted an exemption pursuant to
the applicable provision of =A734.7 (a)(1), (a)(4),
(b), (c), or (d), and an indication of the type
of exemption and the reason for the grant must be
noted in the permanent powerplant record that
accompanies the engine from the time of manufacture of the engine.
(iii) The designation NON-US indicates that the
engine has been granted an exemption pursuant to
=A734.7(a)(1), and the notation =93This aircraft may
not be operated within the United States=94, or an
equivalent notation approved by the Administrator
of the FAA, must be inserted in the aircraft
logbook, or alternate equivalent document, at the
time of installation of the engine.
(8) Any other information the Administrator finds appropriate. . . .
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: | Rotax 912UL for sale |
Lyle:
Are there any instruments with the engine?
Can you crate to ship to Canada?
Noel R. C. Loveys
P.O. Box 129
Campbellton, N.D.B.
Nfld., Canada
A0G 1L0
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Lyle Persels
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 9:40 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Rotax 912UL for sale
>
>
>
> My upgrade to a 912ULS in my Model IV-1200 is complete and the new
> engine is running well. Interestingly, I've detected no increase in
> performance. When the aircraft was down for the engine change, I
> replaced the tires with the large King Fox (21x12x8) tires. While
> this undoubtedly has something to do with the lack of improvement,
> I'm somewhat surprised. I'll do some prop tweaking and see if this
> helps.
>
> I'd now like to sell my old Rotax 912UL. The engine has 450
> hours on
> it. I was a bit tired of fussing with the low speed roughness
> problems, but it was running very well at cruise. The engine has all
> ADs, engine mounts, Warp Drive 3-blade prop hub and mounting bolts
> but no blades, oil tank, complete logs and manuals. Asking $4,000.
> I'm in southern Iowa. Contact me off line.
>
> Lyle Persels
> Model IV-1200
> Osceola, IA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Brakes little to none |
So that glacier is finally melting, eh?
Seriously, I have always felt that the dealer (or Sensenich) might
have over-propped the engine. In cruise, it seems to be about 2-300
rpm short of redline (3300 rpm), and I don't know whether this is a
good thing or not. I know I'm never gonna over-rev it, as long as I
don't head downhill, but I'd like to see it pull a little better on
the climbs. As my background has always been race cars, maybe I just
don't know the parameters surrounding rpms desired in aircraft
engines. Strike that...* KNOW * I don't know what I should know about
props, rpm, etc.
Lynn Matteson
Grass Lake, Michigan
Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
flying w/275+ hrs
do not archive
On May 19, 2007, at 10:57 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
> Under powered or over propped ... Doesn't sound like your Jab....
>
> Perhaps you just have good brakes.... that's my best bet.
>
> No brakes on my floats, which should be getting wet any day now!
>
> Noel Loveys, RPP, AME intern
> Campbellton, Newfoundland,
> Canada
> Kitfox Mod III-A, 582, B box, Ivo IFA
> Aerocet 1100s
> noelloveys@yahoo.ca
>
>
> Do not archive
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'm about to start running the plumbing for my brakes. I have the Matco
MC-5 (I think) master cylinders and wheel cylinders. I will run from the
mstr cyl to the gun drilled Grove gear and then to the wheel cyl. I'm
debating running as much aluminum (1/8" O.D.)as i can with flex at the mstr
and wheel cyls. Is it worth the trouble or should I just run flex line from
the mstr to the gear and not worry about the aluminum and additional
connections required? I do want the most effective brakes I can have. I
know that the Matcos are already questionable and I plan to install the
upgrade kits in them. Thanks guys.
Andy Fultz
AVID Extended Speedwing
Stratus EA-81
Mississippi
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: Gross Weight Question |
Since homebuilts are not certificated planes, it looks like only the
first
three apply to us.
Randy Daughenbaugh, N10NH
Black Hills of South Dakota, - Near Mount Rushmore
Home Strip, Grass Room in Hangar for visitors
Series 5/7 (7 Firewall Forward) 912S, Warp Drive Taper Tip
Gross Weight 1320 lbs, Flying since November 2004
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Guy
Buchanan
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Kitfox-List: Gross Weight Question
At 10:15 PM 5/18/2007, you wrote:
My max gross wt is on the data plate. Is that a current requirement?
>From FAR 45:
=A7 45.11 General.
(a) Aircraft and aircraft engines. Aircraft covered under =A721.182 of
this
chapter must be identified, and each person who manufacturers an
aircraft
engine under a type or production certificate shall identify that
engine, by
means of a fireproof plate that has the information specified in
=A745.13 of
this part marked on it by etching, stamping, engraving, or other
approved
method of fireproof marking. . . .
=A7 45.13 Identification data.
(a) The identification required by =A745.11 (a) and (b) shall include
the
following information:
(1) Builder's name.
(2) Model designation.
(3) Builder's serial number.
(4) Type certificate number, if any.
(5) Production certificate number, if any.
(6) For aircraft engines, the established rating.
(7) On or after January 1, 1984, for aircraft engines specified in part
34
of this chapter, the date of manufacture as defined in =A734.1 of that
part,
and a designation, approved by the Administrator of the FAA, that
indicates
compliance with the applicable exhaust emission provisions of part 34
and 40
CFR part 87. Approved designations include COMPLY, EXEMPT, and NON-US as
appropriate.
(i) The designation COMPLY indicates that the engine is in compliance
with
all of the applicable exhaust emissions provisions of part 34. For any
engine with a rated thrust in excess of 26.7 kilonewtons (6000 pounds)
which
is not used or intended for use in commercial operations and which is in
compliance with the applicable provisions of part 34, but does not
comply
with the hydrocarbon emissions standard of =A734.21(d), the statement
=93May not
be used as a commercial aircraft engine=94 must be noted in the
permanent
powerplant record that accompanies the engine at the time of manufacture
of
the engine.
(ii) The designation EXEMPT indicates that the engine has been granted
an
exemption pursuant to the applicable provision of =A734.7 (a)(1),
(a)(4), (b),
(c), or (d), and an indication of the type of exemption and the reason
for
the grant must be noted in the permanent powerplant record that
accompanies
the engine from the time of manufacture of the engine.
(iii) The designation NON-US indicates that the engine has been granted
an
exemption pursuant to =A734.7(a)(1), and the notation =93This aircraft
may not
be operated within the United States=94, or an equivalent notation
approved by
the Administrator of the FAA, must be inserted in the aircraft logbook,
or
alternate equivalent document, at the time of installation of the
engine.
(8) Any other information the Administrator finds appropriate. . . .
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Maximum Takeoff Weight is not Gross weight..... period. |
At 02:21 PM 5/19/2007, you wrote:
>Or you may keep reading the same old b.s. information on the issue here.
All,
As it does not appear any NEW information has come to light,
I'm going to kill this thread right here. The only exception is
definitive evidence of explicit FAA approval for a Sport Pilot to fly
an aircraft previously certificated at a weight over the prima-facie
light sport aircraft weight of 1320/1430 pounds.
Guy Buchanan, Kitfox List Moderator
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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! --
|