Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:39 AM - Re: Trim Authority (Michael Gibbs)
2. 12:41 AM - Re: New subscriber-1st post-request for info (Michael Gibbs)
3. 02:38 AM - Re: Re: New subscriber-1st post-request for info (Lynn Matteson)
4. 05:14 AM - Re: Landing in Treetops (Bob)
5. 06:48 AM - Re: Vortex Generators/Turbulator's (dave)
6. 06:50 AM - Landing in Treetops (fox5flyer)
7. 07:03 AM - Re: Landing in Treetops (dave)
8. 07:13 AM - Re: Re: New subscriber-1st post-request for info (john oakley)
9. 07:45 AM - Re: Landing in Treetops (Rex Hefferan)
10. 08:01 AM - Re: Landing in Treetops (Marwynne Kuhn)
11. 08:12 AM - Re: Landing in Treetops (Marwynne Kuhn)
12. 08:50 AM - Re: New subscriber-1st post-request for info (Tom Jones)
13. 11:41 AM - Re: Re: Landing in Treetops (Michel Verheughe)
14. 11:43 AM - Re: Fuel Master Valve (Michel Verheughe)
15. 11:46 AM - Re: New subscriber-1st post-request for info (Guy Buchanan)
16. 11:47 AM - Re: Re: Broken tailwheel spring- revelation (Michel Verheughe)
17. 12:44 PM - New float flying vid (akflyer)
18. 01:45 PM - Re: Spam: New float flying vid (John W. Hart)
19. 01:52 PM - Re: Spam: New float flying vid (akflyer)
20. 02:16 PM - Re: Re: Spam: New float flying vid (Marco Menezes)
21. 03:02 PM - Re: Spam: Re: Spam: New float flying vid (John W. Hart)
22. 05:02 PM - Re: New float flying vid (john taylor)
23. 05:30 PM - Re: New float flying vid (akflyer)
24. 06:34 PM - Re: New float flying vid (dave)
25. 07:05 PM - full Lotus (Don & Dianne Usher)
26. 07:46 PM - Re: New float flying vid (akflyer)
27. 11:11 PM - Re: New float flying vid (JC Propellerdesign)
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: Trim Authority |
Luis sez:
>Trimming the airplane for neutral stick pressure during final was
>part of my training and makes good sense to me.
It's an FAA requirement that certified airplanes be capable of being
trimmed for their approach speed. That doesn't apply to
experimentals, of course, but I like it.
Mike G.
N728KF
Phoenix, AZ
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: New subscriber-1st post-request for info |
Lynn sez:
>...I personally can't see why anyone would take a perfectly good
>'fox IV Speedster tailwheel plane and muck (sp?) it up by going to a
>nosewheel!
Let's not start the "why the heck would you want to do that?" stuff
again. The guy asked for advice on how to do something, not for a
bunch of editorials on something that is, after all, a personal
decision.
Mike G., Kitfox List Co-Moderator
N728KF
Phoenix, AZ
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: New subscriber-1st post-request for info |
You're right...I apologize...it was late at night and I should have
been sleeping...
Lynn
On Sep 19, 2007, at 3:41 AM, Michael Gibbs wrote:
> <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Lynn sez:
>
>> ...I personally can't see why anyone would take a perfectly good
>> 'fox IV Speedster tailwheel plane and muck (sp?) it up by going to
>> a nosewheel!
>
> Let's not start the "why the heck would you want to do that?" stuff
> again. The guy asked for advice on how to do something, not for a
> bunch of editorials on something that is, after all, a personal
> decision.
>
> Mike G., Kitfox List Co-Moderator
> N728KF
> Phoenix, AZ
>
>
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: Landing in Treetops |
Hi all -
Been away doing the work, kids, and rest of life for the summer and saw this so
thought I'd throw in my 2-cents.
Trying to land in treetops has been done, but it has become a myth and is far more hazardous than controlling your impact. Go into the NTSB records (www.ntsb.gov) and it's easy to find records like these:
"The airplane dipped to the left, struck the trees and fell to the ground."
or
"the plane hit the tree tops and tumbled through the trees"
or a survivable one in a 172:
"The airplane clipped the tops of the trees, then plunged down nose-first. Both
wings were bent by the impact."
There are two reasons that the odds are against a successful tree-top landing.
The first is that after the first contact, you have absolutely no control of
what's next. One of those long wings is going to hit a tree first (or the gear
will) and things are going to pivot on that point. And that first impact will
be the fastest one.
I'd rather control where the impact with the most energy is going to happen. One
of the things instructors teach is that when performing a forced landing in
a short field, landing short or hitting trees at the near end with more speed
is going to do a lot more damage than controlling where you roll into them while
slower at the far end.
The second reason that tree-top landings don't generally work out well is that
gravity still rules. For every photo that you've probably seen of a plane in
the trees, I'll bet you can think of two where the airplane is nose down at the
base of some trees. If you don't truly snag enough tree branches to keep you
up, the airplane is going to fall. With the engine up front and that tail snagging
branches at the back, the nose is going to go straight down. Here's where
you need to think of survivability. Would you be willing to hang your plane
by the tail at the height of whatever tree, strap in, and then cut the strap?
That's about what happens in these situations and there just isn't that much
crushable material in front of you to break your fall.
There is an upside in that the statitstics show that the Kitfox and Avid series
have an amazingly good survivability rate and it's largely due to the slow stall
speeds. The overall accident rate for experimentals is much higher than
the certified airplanes, largely due to fuel and other systems installations.
However, the 'Foxes and Avids land slow (less energy to dissipate) and deform
structure in a way that absorbs energy around the central cockpit area, as long
as it's not a full frontal impact. Keeping from having a full frontal impact
is something that you can control.
Bob
A&P, Aero Eng
Vixen (part-built)
Damascus, MD
--------
Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135234#135234
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: Vortex Generators/Turbulator's |
one more attribute on the Vg's that I failed to mention originally was a greater
AOA on climb out was evident.
--------
Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada
Flying Videos and Kitfox Info
http://www.cfisher.com/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135246#135246
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: | Landing in Treetops |
Good logical and common sense thoughts.
Thanks,
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
do not archive
>
> Hi all -
> Been away doing the work, kids, and rest of life for the summer and saw
this so thought I'd throw in my 2-cents.
>
> Trying to land in treetops has been done, but it has become a myth and is
far more hazardous than controlling your impact. Go into the NTSB records
(www.ntsb.gov) and it's easy to find records like these:
>
> "The airplane dipped to the left, struck the trees and fell to the
ground."
> or
> "the plane hit the tree tops and tumbled through the trees"
> or a survivable one in a 172:
> "The airplane clipped the tops of the trees, then plunged down nose-first.
Both wings were bent by the impact."
>
> There are two reasons that the odds are against a successful tree-top
landing. The first is that after the first contact, you have absolutely no
control of what's next. One of those long wings is going to hit a tree
first (or the gear will) and things are going to pivot on that point. And
that first impact will be the fastest one.
>
> I'd rather control where the impact with the most energy is going to
happen. One of the things instructors teach is that when performing a
forced landing in a short field, landing short or hitting trees at the near
end with more speed is going to do a lot more damage than controlling where
you roll into them while slower at the far end.
>
> The second reason that tree-top landings don't generally work out well is
that gravity still rules. For every photo that you've probably seen of a
plane in the trees, I'll bet you can think of two where the airplane is nose
down at the base of some trees. If you don't truly snag enough tree
branches to keep you up, the airplane is going to fall. With the engine up
front and that tail snagging branches at the back, the nose is going to go
straight down. Here's where you need to think of survivability. Would you
be willing to hang your plane by the tail at the height of whatever tree,
strap in, and then cut the strap? That's about what happens in these
situations and there just isn't that much crushable material in front of you
to break your fall.
>
> There is an upside in that the statitstics show that the Kitfox and Avid
series have an amazingly good survivability rate and it's largely due to the
slow stall speeds. The overall accident rate for experimentals is much
higher than the certified airplanes, largely due to fuel and other systems
installations. However, the 'Foxes and Avids land slow (less energy to
dissipate) and deform structure in a way that absorbs energy around the
central cockpit area, as long as it's not a full frontal impact. Keeping
from having a full frontal impact is something that you can control.
>
> Bob
> A&P, Aero Eng
> Vixen (part-built)
> Damascus, MD
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: Landing in Treetops |
My feeling is you are better to be able to be in control into the trees than falling
into them. If you have airspeed then you have better control than you will
when you run out of airspeed.
I had a friend over 20 years ago faced this scenario while flying his Apache and
losing one engine. With out being able to maintain altitude on single engine
operations his Apache went into 130 foot tall trees . After it slowed , what
was left of the fuselage and the 4 occupants suffered only minor injuries until
gravity took over and they basically free fell over 100 feet to rock. They
all suffered severe back injuries from that alone.
I have been PIC in 4 engine outs so far since I learned to fly nearly 30 years
ago , one I landed at an airport the other 3 were all forced approaches off
airport. Fortunately, none of the occupants ever had injuries nor did the aircraft.
I feel lucky and also think that the training and practice I have had
contributed to my luck. that being said i could have another forced approach
today or tomorrow and if so I hope to handle as best as possible.
--------
Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada
Flying Videos and Kitfox Info
http://www.cfisher.com/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135249#135249
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: New subscriber-1st post-request for info |
Mike G,
The main gear bracket you show does not look stock, who cut that out for
you? We need something like that for our model 1.
John Oakley
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Gibbs
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:58 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: New subscriber-1st post-request for info
Ernest sez:
>I will want to convert to a tri-gear (nose wheel).
>
>Are approved parts and plans available? From who and where? Is this
>a complicated conversion? Requiring welding and reinforcement of
>fuselage and/or firewall? And will I need to make a decision on
>which engine before beginning work on the landing gear?
I think you are on your own as far as plans go, but the process isn't
rocket science. Some welding and reinforcement is required, but I
don't think the engine choice matters at this point unless you plan
to do something truly exotic.
You'll need a mounting plate welded to the tubing just behind the
firewall and you'll need to reinforce the tubing just behind the
seats. On mine, we did this by welding plates between the tubes, as
shown in the attached photos.
The nosewheel assembly was supplied by the factory and the main gear
is from Grove.
Hope this is helpful,
Mike G.
N728KF
Phoenix, AZ
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: | Re: Landing in Treetops |
This may not be of much use to this discussion, but this famous photo is from a
local airport and I just couldn't resist any longer.
http://www.meadowlakeairport.com/INDEX2.html
Scroll down to read complete story.
Do not archive
--------
Rex
N740GP - M2/582
Colorado
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135261#135261
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Landing in Treetops |
----- Original Message -----
From: "fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@idealwifi.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 9:46 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Landing in Treetops
>
> Good logical and common sense thoughts.
> Thanks,
> Deke Morisse
> Mikado Michigan
> S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
>
> do not archive
>
>
>>
>> Hi all -
>> Been away doing the work, kids, and rest of life for the summer and saw
> this so thought I'd throw in my 2-cents.
>>
>> Trying to land in treetops has been done, but it has become a myth and is
> far more hazardous than controlling your impact. Go into the NTSB records
> (www.ntsb.gov) and it's easy to find records like these:
>>
>> "The airplane dipped to the left, struck the trees and fell to the
> ground."
>> or
>> "the plane hit the tree tops and tumbled through the trees"
>> or a survivable one in a 172:
>> "The airplane clipped the tops of the trees, then plunged down
>> nose-first.
> Both wings were bent by the impact."
>>
>> There are two reasons that the odds are against a successful tree-top
> landing. The first is that after the first contact, you have absolutely
> no
> control of what's next. One of those long wings is going to hit a tree
> first (or the gear will) and things are going to pivot on that point. And
> that first impact will be the fastest one.
>>
>> I'd rather control where the impact with the most energy is going to
> happen. One of the things instructors teach is that when performing a
> forced landing in a short field, landing short or hitting trees at the
> near
> end with more speed is going to do a lot more damage than controlling
> where
> you roll into them while slower at the far end.
>>
>> The second reason that tree-top landings don't generally work out well is
> that gravity still rules. For every photo that you've probably seen of a
> plane in the trees, I'll bet you can think of two where the airplane is
> nose
> down at the base of some trees. If you don't truly snag enough tree
> branches to keep you up, the airplane is going to fall. With the engine
> up
> front and that tail snagging branches at the back, the nose is going to go
> straight down. Here's where you need to think of survivability. Would
> you
> be willing to hang your plane by the tail at the height of whatever tree,
> strap in, and then cut the strap? That's about what happens in these
> situations and there just isn't that much crushable material in front of
> you
> to break your fall.
>>
>> There is an upside in that the statitstics show that the Kitfox and Avid
> series have an amazingly good survivability rate and it's largely due to
> the
> slow stall speeds. The overall accident rate for experimentals is much
> higher than the certified airplanes, largely due to fuel and other systems
> installations. However, the 'Foxes and Avids land slow (less energy to
> dissipate) and deform structure in a way that absorbs energy around the
> central cockpit area, as long as it's not a full frontal impact. Keeping
> from having a full frontal impact is something that you can control.
>>
>> Bob
>> A&P, Aero Eng
>> Vixen (part-built)
>> Damascus, MD
>
>
>
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: Landing in Treetops |
Everything that was said makes common since. The only issue that is
missing is if you have a choice of where to land. It is great to read a
document and second guess what should have been done. I know for a fact
that if I had just another minute of flight time that I could have made an
open field . In fact if I had another 50 feet of altitude , I could have
landed in an open field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@idealwifi.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 9:46 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Landing in Treetops
>
> Good logical and common sense thoughts.
> Thanks,
> Deke Morisse
> Mikado Michigan
> S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
>
> do not archive
>
>
>>
>> Hi all -
>> Been away doing the work, kids, and rest of life for the summer and saw
> this so thought I'd throw in my 2-cents.
>>
>> Trying to land in treetops has been done, but it has become a myth and is
> far more hazardous than controlling your impact. Go into the NTSB records
> (www.ntsb.gov) and it's easy to find records like these:
>>
>> "The airplane dipped to the left, struck the trees and fell to the
> ground."
>> or
>> "the plane hit the tree tops and tumbled through the trees"
>> or a survivable one in a 172:
>> "The airplane clipped the tops of the trees, then plunged down
>> nose-first.
> Both wings were bent by the impact."
>>
>> There are two reasons that the odds are against a successful tree-top
> landing. The first is that after the first contact, you have absolutely
> no
> control of what's next. One of those long wings is going to hit a tree
> first (or the gear will) and things are going to pivot on that point. And
> that first impact will be the fastest one.
>>
>> I'd rather control where the impact with the most energy is going to
> happen. One of the things instructors teach is that when performing a
> forced landing in a short field, landing short or hitting trees at the
> near
> end with more speed is going to do a lot more damage than controlling
> where
> you roll into them while slower at the far end.
>>
>> The second reason that tree-top landings don't generally work out well is
> that gravity still rules. For every photo that you've probably seen of a
> plane in the trees, I'll bet you can think of two where the airplane is
> nose
> down at the base of some trees. If you don't truly snag enough tree
> branches to keep you up, the airplane is going to fall. With the engine
> up
> front and that tail snagging branches at the back, the nose is going to go
> straight down. Here's where you need to think of survivability. Would
> you
> be willing to hang your plane by the tail at the height of whatever tree,
> strap in, and then cut the strap? That's about what happens in these
> situations and there just isn't that much crushable material in front of
> you
> to break your fall.
>>
>> There is an upside in that the statitstics show that the Kitfox and Avid
> series have an amazingly good survivability rate and it's largely due to
> the
> slow stall speeds. The overall accident rate for experimentals is much
> higher than the certified airplanes, largely due to fuel and other systems
> installations. However, the 'Foxes and Avids land slow (less energy to
> dissipate) and deform structure in a way that absorbs energy around the
> central cockpit area, as long as it's not a full frontal impact. Keeping
> from having a full frontal impact is something that you can control.
>>
>> Bob
>> A&P, Aero Eng
>> Vixen (part-built)
>> Damascus, MD
>
>
>
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: New subscriber-1st post-request for info |
> Will this be considered a major airframe modification? and what kind of "paper-work"
and inspections will be required?
Ernie,
If this airplane already has an experimental airworthyness certificate the answer
is in the operating limitations issued with it. Some say you need to notify
the FSDO in writing about the modification. Some say just put it back into
Phase one (test phase) for five hours, I think, and make a log book entry.
It seems like every FSDO interprets the regulations differently so a call to your
FSDO will probably be needed to be sure.
--------
Tom Jones
Classic IV, Phase one
503 Rotax, 72 inch Two blade Warp
Ellensburg, WA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135280#135280
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: Landing in Treetops |
On Sep 17, 2007, at 1:43 AM, Paul Seehafer wrote:
> So I didn't want pilots here thinking landing in the trees is pretty
> much a safe bet,when they might have other (better?) options possibly.
You are absolutely right, Paul. I should not give advice as to what to
do in the case of an emergency landing and I wasn't either; I merely
quoted someone else.
On Sep 19, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Bob wrote:
> There are two reasons that the odds are against a successful tree-top
> landing. The first is that after the first contact, you have
> absolutely no control of what's next. One of those long wings is
> going to hit a tree first (or the gear will) and things are going to
> pivot on that point.
Two very good arguments, Bob. But remember that the choice in the given
example was: treetops or concrete buildings. The argument from the
German instructor was: Branches are softer than concrete.
On Sep 19, 2007, at 4:03 PM, dave wrote:
> My feeling is you are better to be able to be in control into the
> trees than falling into them. If you have airspeed then you have
> better control than you will when you run out of airspeed.
That makes sense, Dave. The German instructor never talked about
stalling above the trees. Incidentally, a few years ago, a pilot flew
in a row of trees nearby where I live. After take-off, with much load,
short field, high OAT, etc. he tried to avoid the treetops by flying
near the stall speed i.e. with too much induced drag and ended in the
high treetops and felt on the other side of the row. He survived but
his passenger was killed. Each situation demands a different handling.
I think the most important is to be prepared, i.e. always asking
oneself: What if ... e.g. the engine stops now?
On Sep 19, 2007, at 4:45 PM, Rex Hefferan wrote:
> This may not be of much use to this discussion, but this famous photo
> is from a local airport and I just couldn't resist any longer.
> http://www.meadowlakeairport.com/INDEX2.html Scroll down to read
> complete story.
Thank you very much for the link, Rex. I got the first photo half a
year ago and I immediately saw that it was 'photoshoped' (retouched).
After talking with some friends, we agreed that the photo was a fake.
It turns out that it is not, only a few details have been changed to
make a better punch line.
On Sep 19, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Marwynne Kuhn wrote:
> Everything that was said makes common since. The only issue that is
> missing is if you have a choice of where to land.
Exactly, Marwynne. The question is not: Should I land in the treetops,
but rather: What are the alternatives?
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
Do not archive
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: Fuel Master Valve |
On Sep 18, 2007, at 2:35 AM, <dcaofak@acsalaska.net> wrote:
> I was cleaning out some old boxes and found the original fuel master
> valve that came with my model 3 kit back in 1991. I simplified the
> fuel line routing and ended up not using it. If you want it and the
> little shroud / mount it's in, please contact me privately and I'll
> send it to you.
Very kind of you, John, but I have already purchased one. (Incidentally
my model 3 is also from 1991)
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
Do not archive
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New subscriber-1st post-request for info |
At 10:32 PM 9/17/2007, you wrote:
>Engines?? Possibly a Jabiru 2200? Just a couple days ago I saw from
><http://www.compactradialengines.com>www.compactradialengines.com an
>85hp MZ-301 with about the best power-weight-cost ratio numbers I
>have seen? Anybody know about or care to comment on this engine (and
>the company?)
Welcome Ernie! It sounds like a fun project on your hands. I had
never seen the engines you referenced so I'm glad you showed them.
They look great, but of course are two-stroke, with all the attendant
problems, which are:
1. Mixing fuel. Two strokes require oil in their fuel. Rotax uses a
convenient oil pump to inject oil into the intake manifolds
precluding pre-mix. If these don't have oil injection you'll have to
pre-mix. It's not a big deal at home, but I suspect it would be a
real pain on the road. (I do a fair amount of long cross countries
and it's still a pain for me as I have to carry up to 20 pints,
(almost 20 pounds,) of oil with me for a week of flying.)
2. Fuel use. Two strokes are notorious gas hogs. You'll want to check
on that for these engines.
3. Noise. Two strokes are notoriously noisy, with a high pitched
whine that can be annoying.
I sound disparaging, but please note that I'm running a
Rotax 582 and have been quite happy with it. I can't help you with
the trike conversion but there are plenty that have done it. If you
don't get a response here email me privately and I'll try to hook you
up with a couple.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: Broken tailwheel spring- revelation |
On Sep 16, 2007, at 11:11 PM, dave wrote:
> Not so, The tailwheel will be bouncing around and likely go through
> your rudder.
On Sep 17, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Lynn Matteson wrote:
> Not so fast there, Michel...when I broke my 2-leaf (main and
> helper/booster/whatever) I still got a bit of rash on my rudder
> because the tailwheel flopped around a bit and the rear of the plane
> dropped down to be SUPPORTED by the helper leaf
Then I must have been very lucky, Dave and Lynn. When I broke my
tailwheel spring, I was the right-hand seater; my son being the PIC. As
I got out of the plane, I thought first that I had entirely lost the
tailwheel because I couldn't see anything. It turned out that the right
hand spring link to the rudder broke too and the wheel was trailed on
the left side of the fuselage, away from the rudder.
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
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: | New float flying vid |
I made a quick vid of a little hunt we were on last week. The camera man cant
quit talking but once you get past that it is ok lol..
A little history, I put my floats on my brothers kitfox, as I have been having
too much fun flying his plane since he got it up here to even think about working
on mine. I was not happy with the performance as I knew it could do better.
I have moved the step location 3 times and changed the angle of incidence
3 times also. In this video I had a bit too much angle of incidence on it. You
could get it off the water quick, but it had so much drag it slowed me down
8 knots. I added a 3/4" shim to the rear float mount and now have it nailed.
The cruise is still good 70 knots at 5800, and takeoff is great with no tendency
to porpoise.
At about 6:00 minutes into the vid you can see the slew I was taking off of in
the first part of the vid, and at 6:10 you can see the little pond. The rest
of the vid is just a small part of the flats we hunt. The ducks and geese are
really starting to move through and KF makes it a breeze to hunt the area.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKyg7uUV8js
--------
Leonard Perry
Soldotna AK
Avid "C" / Mk IV
582 IVO IFA
Full Lotus 1260
95% complete
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135331#135331
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: | New float flying vid |
Leonard,
Was that video shot in the Susitna River flats?
John Hart
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of akflyer
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:43 PM
Subject: Spam: Kitfox-List: New float flying vid
I made a quick vid of a little hunt we were on last week. The camera man
cant quit talking but once you get past that it is ok lol..
A little history, I put my floats on my brothers kitfox, as I have been
having too much fun flying his plane since he got it up here to even think
about working on mine. I was not happy with the performance as I knew it
could do better. I have moved the step location 3 times and changed the
angle of incidence 3 times also. In this video I had a bit too much angle
of incidence on it. You could get it off the water quick, but it had so
much drag it slowed me down 8 knots. I added a 3/4" shim to the rear float
mount and now have it nailed. The cruise is still good 70 knots at 5800,
and takeoff is great with no tendency to porpoise.
At about 6:00 minutes into the vid you can see the slew I was taking off of
in the first part of the vid, and at 6:10 you can see the little pond. The
rest of the vid is just a small part of the flats we hunt. The ducks and
geese are really starting to move through and KF makes it a breeze to hunt
the area.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKyg7uUV8js
--------
Leonard Perry
Soldotna AK
Avid "C" / Mk IV
582 IVO IFA
Full Lotus 1260
95% complete
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135331#135331
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: Spam: New float flying vid |
south of the Kustatan...
--------
Leonard Perry
Soldotna AK
Avid "C" / Mk IV
582 IVO IFA
Full Lotus 1260
95% complete
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135344#135344
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: Spam: New float flying vid |
Leonard, that is so cool. About as great a promotional vid for Kitfox/Full Lotus
as anyone could wish for.
do not archive
akflyer <akflyer_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
south of the Kustatan...
--------
Leonard Perry
Soldotna AK
Avid "C" / Mk IV
582 IVO IFA
Full Lotus 1260
95% complete
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135344#135344
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
---------------------------------
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news,
photos & more.
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: Spam: New float flying vid |
OK, I know generally where you were. I used to do some of the same stuff in
a C-185 on amphibs on the Susitna flats. The areas are very similar in
appearance.
The video gave a good example of what a Kitfox is capapble of.
John Hart
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of akflyer
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 3:52 PM
Subject: Spam: Kitfox-List: Re: Spam: New float flying vid
south of the Kustatan...
--------
Leonard Perry
Soldotna AK
Avid "C" / Mk IV
582 IVO IFA
Full Lotus 1260
95% complete
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135344#135344
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: New float flying vid |
wow!!! lenny. that was just too much fun..... tnx so much for sharing that
with us. i'm john bowman down here in sout la (prairieville) still trying
to get my avid hh covered. that fox-- what engine again?? i've got that d
ecision to make & the huge $$ to come up with..... between the jab & the ro
tax 9's....also looking at a new belgium engine, close to 100 hp, electroni
c ignitiion, but no usage data yet available & it's very expensive (more th
an the rotax 80 912) but apparently extremely well engineered. i'll send we
b site if u'r interested. tnx again. & take care. looks like home except
for the snow & ice that's coming or is it? will global warming turn it int
o new iberia afore long? are u all up there working in the way cool oil pat
ch? or did u just take a wrong turn. also, now soldatna sounds like the li
ttle place where we took a bush plane ride (old 180 on wheels) up to the bi
g mtn & then down on the grass tops looking for bear etc.... have
names of the pilot & his lady who rode with us if it's the same place - u
must know them if they're still around. my fantasy is to bring my avid bac
k up there flyin & riding in a trlr & air tour some of the places we visite
d a couple of yrs back. u be careful now!! u make the lotus float ads come
alive. i hope they appreciate u!!! john b.=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message
----=0AFrom: akflyer <akflyer_2000@yahoo.com>=0ATo: kitfox-list@matronics.
com=0ASent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:42:41 PM=0ASubject: Kitfox-List
<akflyer_2000@yahoo.com>=0A=0AI made a quick vid of a little hunt we were
on last week. The camera man cant quit talking but once you get past that
it is ok lol..=0A=0AA little history, I put my floats on my brothers kitfox
, as I have been having too much fun flying his plane since he got it up he
re to even think about working on mine. I was not happy with the performan
ce as I knew it could do better. I have moved the step location 3 times an
d changed the angle of incidence 3 times also. In this video I had a bit t
oo much angle of incidence on it. You could get it off the water quick, bu
t it had so much drag it slowed me down 8 knots. I added a 3/4" shim to th
e rear float mount and now have it nailed. The cruise is still good 70 kno
ts at 5800, and takeoff is great with no tendency to porpoise.=0A=0AAt abou
t 6:00 minutes into the vid you can see the slew I was taking off of in the
first part of the vid, and at 6:10 you can see the little pond. The rest
of the vid is just a small part of the flats we hunt. The ducks and geese
are really starting to move through and KF makes it a breeze to hunt the ar
ea.=0A=0Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKyg7uUV8js=0A=0A--------=0ALeona
rd Perry=0ASoldotna AK=0AAvid "C" / Mk IV =0A582 IVO IFA=0AFull L
otus 1260=0A95% complete=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Aht
tp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135331#135331=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
===0A=0A=0A =0A__________________________________________________
__________________________________=0APinpoint customers who are looking for
what you sell. =0Ahttp://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New float flying vid |
he has a 582 in it with IVO IFA 68" 3 blade. I am ordering a set of 72" 2 blade
to see if I can get just a bit more thrust out of it. I know that on my pacer
I went from a 76X58 cruise prop to a 81X42 climb prop and holy cow did it make
a difference in getting off the water..went from a 1500'+ take off run to
around 350' only lost 15 knots of cruise
--------
Leonard Perry
Soldotna AK
Avid "C" / Mk IV
582 IVO IFA
Full Lotus 1260
95% complete
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135389#135389
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New float flying vid |
Nice video there.
What ratio you got 2.58 ?
I tried 2.62 on E box this year but lost take off and cruise speed over the 3.00
to 1 gear.
I have a 72 " IVO medium 2 blade on now and it really not alot different than
my WARP 68" three blade.
You won't see a Jabiru on floats perform like that. 912 yes but not a jab or
VW unless geared with a bigger prop.
--------
Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada
Flying Videos and Kitfox Info
http://www.cfisher.com/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135400#135400
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I made a comment the other day about my floats. I have no issue with the
floats as to performance. I am off the water in flat calm in 8 secs and
cruise a 80mph. I live on Kootenay lake in BC and am exposed to the
wind. Have an airstrip three miles away where I keep the plane on a
trailer. Takes one hour to put it in the water and the same to take it
out. Thus the need for amphibs. I have three planes, two on floats and
fly vertually every day.
Don
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New float flying vid |
2.62 How can it loose performance? You should be spinning the prop a bit faster.
Most guys that tried 3:1 said they went back to 2.62... I cant say as I have
never tried the 3:1. Were you swinging a longer prop at 3:1?
I would really be interested in getting a bit more thrust for mine for taking off
the grass or coming up on step when at "gross" or a tad over..
--------
Leonard Perry
Soldotna AK
Avid "C" / Mk IV
582 IVO IFA
Full Lotus 1260
95% complete
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135421#135421
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New float flying vid |
Why not a BMW 1100 S, 85-90 HP low fuel consumption.
lot cheaper then the other.
Jan
----- Original Message -----
From: john taylor
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: New float flying vid
wow!!! lenny. that was just too much fun..... tnx so much for sharing
that with us. i'm john bowman down here in sout la (prairieville) still
trying to get my avid hh covered. that fox-- what engine again?? i've
got that decision to make & the huge $$ to come up with..... between the
jab & the rotax 9's....also looking at a new belgium engine, close to
100 hp, electronic ignitiion, but no usage data yet available & it's
very expensive (more than the rotax 80 912) but apparently extremely
well engineered. i'll send web site if u'r interested. tnx again. &
take care. looks like home except for the snow & ice that's coming or is
it? will global warming turn it into new iberia afore long? are u all
up there working in the way cool oil patch? or did u just take a wrong
turn. also, now soldatna sounds like the little place where we took a
bush plane ride (old 180 on wheels) up to the big mtn & then down on the
grass tops looking for bear etc.... have names of the pilot & his lady
who rode with us if it's the same place - u must know them if they're
still around. my fantasy is to bring my avid back up there flyin &
riding in a trlr & air tour some of the places we visited a couple of
yrs back. u be careful now!! u make the lotus float ads come alive. i
hope they appreciate u!!! john b.
----- Original Message ----
From: akflyer <akflyer_2000@yahoo.com>
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:42:41 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: New float flying vid
I made a quick vid of a little hunt we were on last week. The camera
man cant quit talking but once you get past that it is ok lol..
A little history, I put my floats on my brothers kitfox, as I have
been having too much fun flying his plane since he got it up here to
even think about working on mine. I was not happy with the performance
as I knew it could do better. I have moved the step location 3 times
and changed the angle of incidence 3 times also. In this video I had a
bit too much angle of incidence on it. You could get it off the water
quick, but it had so much drag it slowed me down 8 knots. I added a
3/4" shim to the rear float mount and now have it nailed. The cruise is
still good 70 knots at 5800, and takeoff is great with no tendency to
porpoise.
At about 6:00 minutes into the vid you can see the slew I was taking
off of in the first part of the vid, and at 6:10 you can see the little
pond. The rest of the vid is just a small part of the flats we hunt.
The ducks and geese are really starting to move through and KF makes it
a breeze to hunt the area.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKyg7uUV8js
--------
Leonard Perry
Soldotna AK
Avid "C" / Mk IV
582 IVO IFA
Full Lotus 1260
95% complete
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics - The Kitfox-List Email Forum
avigator?Kitfox-List"
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kisp; - NEW
=====
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Takvt=48253/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC">Internet in
your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
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! --
|