Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:51 AM - Re: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. (dave)
2. 03:49 AM - Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. (fox5flyer)
3. 04:09 AM - Re: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. (dave)
4. 04:21 AM - Re: Re: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. (Ken Harrison)
5. 04:36 AM - Re: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. (dave)
6. 05:04 AM - Re: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. (Lynn Matteson)
7. 06:11 AM - Horiz stab rod ends, was: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. (fox5flyer)
8. 08:37 AM - Re: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. (Michael Gibbs)
9. 09:46 AM - Re: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. (n61kf)
10. 02:42 PM - Insurance woes. (Andrew Lawrence)
11. 03:18 PM - weight and ballance (john oakley)
12. 03:56 PM - Re: Insurance woes. (darinh)
13. 04:18 PM - Re: Insurance woes. (John W. Hart)
14. 05:10 PM - Re: Re: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. (Guy Buchanan)
15. 05:10 PM - Re: Insurance woes. (Lowell Fitt)
16. 05:23 PM - Re: Insurance woes. (Guy Buchanan)
17. 05:30 PM - Re: Insurance woes. (Andrew Lawrence)
18. 05:33 PM - Re: Insurance woes. (Tom Jones)
19. 05:53 PM - Re: Re: Insurance woes. (kirk hull)
20. 06:25 PM - Re: Re: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. (Michael Gibbs)
21. 06:46 PM - Re: Insurance woes. (Michael Gibbs)
22. 06:46 PM - Re: weight and ballance (Michael Gibbs)
23. 06:52 PM - Re: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. (dave)
24. 07:00 PM - Re: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. (dave)
25. 07:49 PM - Re: Re: Insurance woes. (Lynn Matteson)
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: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. |
Ken,
I think you will find that there to my knowledge has ever been a inflight breakup
of a Kitfox from the wing strut attach fitting. I think the testing showed
in excess of +14G and still no failure. But I stand to be corrected.
I will say that AVIDs do have what seem to me to be a stronger wing attach fitting
by eliminating the rod end.
Kitfox used rod ends I think to compensate for variances in build tolerances but
I don't think it anything to worry about. I would check with John McBean
to find out the exact procedure of what you are asking.
You only need one thread to fail ,so no matter how far it screwed in the rod end
the one that will fail will be out side of it . Does anyone know the actual
shear strength of the threaded part of the wing strut attach point ? I would
bet each of the 4 attach points are 4000 to 6000 pound tensile and we fly
at 1200 or so lbs divided by 4 = 300 each ? MAke sense ? If I am correct
that means at 10 gs you are pulling 3000 pound force and I guarantee you that
you won't see 10gs. I am done talking outta my ass now.
> I would think a connection that important, and under that much stress would
have all the bolts in sheer, not tension. If those 8 or ten threads fail, your
cooked.
>
>
--------
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=140724#140724
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: | Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. |
One thing that needs to be remembered is that AN fittings have "rolled"
threads, not cut threads. This makes them much stronger than the normal
non-AN threaded fitting and much less susceptible to stress cracking at the
threads. Personally, if there was anything to worry about I believe it
would be the fittings at the horizontal stab where there is a history of
breakage in the IV.
For what it's worth.
Deke
S5, NE Michigan
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: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. |
> I believe it
> would be the fittings at the horizontal stab where there is a history of
> breakage in the IV.
>
I think that perhaps the breakages was due to rough ground handling using the
horiz.stab braces for handle rather than using the Fuselage handle.
Would this be the likely culprit ?
He have rolled thread on the strut atttach point?
SO what is the tensile of them and the rod ends ?
--------
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=140728#140728
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: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. |
OK, that makes sense. Except I wonder if one of the lurking engineers on
the list could calculate the in-flight load on one of those fittings.
Because I think you have to account for the fact that the strut is not
attached to the wing at 90 degrees. The in-flight vertical load per fitting
is 300 pounds, but the strut is at about 60 degrees from vertical (or more,
I didn't actually measure it). Just for example, if the strut were at 45
degrees to the vertical, and had a 300 pound vertical load from the wing,
the tension felt by the strut would be 600 pounds, and 600 pounds of
compression felt by the inboard wing spar. (Now I'm showing my ignorance.)
Is that how it would work? The same as the vertical and horizontal
components of lift felt by a wing in turning flight?
Anyway, I think I'm just worrying for no reason. It sounds like the
connection is plenty strong. I'll go back to worrying about ground-looping.
Thanks for the info.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dave
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 5:51 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts.
Ken,
I think you will find that there to my knowledge has ever been a inflight
breakup of a Kitfox from the wing strut attach fitting. I think the
testing showed in excess of +14G and still no failure. But I stand to be
corrected.
I will say that AVIDs do have what seem to me to be a stronger wing attach
fitting by eliminating the rod end.
Kitfox used rod ends I think to compensate for variances in build
tolerances but I don't think it anything to worry about. I would check
with John McBean to find out the exact procedure of what you are asking.
You only need one thread to fail ,so no matter how far it screwed in the
rod end the one that will fail will be out side of it . Does anyone know
the actual shear strength of the threaded part of the wing strut attach
point ? I would bet each of the 4 attach points are 4000 to 6000 pound
tensile and we fly at 1200 or so lbs divided by 4 = 300 each ? MAke
sense ? If I am correct that means at 10 gs you are pulling 3000 pound
force and I guarantee you that you won't see 10gs. I am done talking
outta my ass now.
> I would think a connection that important, and under that much stress
would have all the bolts in sheer, not tension. If those 8 or ten threads
fail, your cooked.
>
>
--------
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=140724#140724
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: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. |
> Anyway, I think I'm just worrying for no reason. It sounds like the
> connection is plenty strong. I'll go back to worrying about ground-looping
Ken, I am no engineer but I can tell you that past history does speak personally
and from the other 5000 plus Kitfox and Avids out there.
If these were going to be over stressed we would be seeing reports of breakage.
I think the most likely reason for Kitfox accidents is likely form pilot incompetence
from lack of training.
For example if you look at another popular design the Challenger there have been
in lfight break ups at the strut to longeron fitting called a RONY bracket.
They recommend to change them ever so many hours. Now that is a RED FLAG
to me .
Hope this helps
--------
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=140732#140732
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: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. |
Is that "history of breakage in the IV" when they were 3/16" rod end
bearings? I know there's an SB on changing these to 1/4", which is
what I did during my building process. I got the AN490 threaded rod
ends (1/4"), welded them myself, and got the necessary 1/4" x 3/16"
rod end bearings, and have been avoiding the grim reaper ever
since. : ) (knock on wood)
Lynn Matteson
Grass Lake, Michigan
Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
flying w/420+ hrs
On Oct 19, 2007, at 7:46 AM, fox5flyer wrote:
> <fox5flyer@idealwifi.net>
>
> One thing that needs to be remembered is that AN fittings have
> "rolled" threads, not cut threads. This makes them much stronger
> than the normal non-AN threaded fitting and much less susceptible
> to stress cracking at the threads. Personally, if there was
> anything to worry about I believe it would be the fittings at the
> horizontal stab where there is a history of breakage in the IV.
> For what it's worth.
> Deke
> S5, NE Michigan
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: | Horiz stab rod ends, was: Attachment fitting at top of lift |
struts.
As I recall Lynn, I believe that is correct. I'm sure the service bulletin
is available on John's web site. Personally, everyone with a IV should have
a look at those rod ends to see if they have the 3/16" units. I'm not
saying they should all be changed, but it's something to be aware of and if
you're in the building process, now is the time to consider upgrading.
Some say it is from mishandling that caused the breakage, which to some
extend may be true. However, there is a lot of down pressure on those rod
ends, even in normal flight. However, in turbulence, they can really take a
beating.
Deke Morisse
S5/NE Michigan
>
> Is that "history of breakage in the IV" when they were 3/16" rod end
> bearings? I know there's an SB on changing these to 1/4", which is what I
> did during my building process. I got the AN490 threaded rod ends (1/4"),
> welded them myself, and got the necessary 1/4" x 3/16" rod end bearings,
> and have been avoiding the grim reaper ever since. : ) (knock on wood)
>
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Grass Lake, Michigan
> Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
> flying w/420+ hrs
>
>
> On Oct 19, 2007, at 7:46 AM, fox5flyer wrote:
>
>>
>> One thing that needs to be remembered is that AN fittings have "rolled"
>> threads, not cut threads. This makes them much stronger than the normal
>> non-AN threaded fitting and much less susceptible to stress cracking at
>> the threads. Personally, if there was anything to worry about I believe
>> it would be the fittings at the horizontal stab where there is a history
>> of breakage in the IV.
>> For what it's worth.
>> Deke
>> S5, NE Michigan
>
>
>
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: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. |
Ken sez:
>...I wonder if one of the lurking engineers on the list could
>calculate the in-flight load on one of those fittings.
I don't want to discourage the lurking engineers from having some
fun, but that calculation was performed at the factory 20 years ago
when the design was developed. Since there has never been an
inflight failure, I'd say their numbers have been fully validated
through operational experience.
There are things to worry about when building and flying your Kitfox
but this is probably not one of them.
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: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. |
Ken.
There should be 1 1/16" of threads on the end of the lift strut. The witness hole
on my rod ends are 5/16" from the open end. I too have had some concern about
the strength of the threaded portion of the lift strut. This stems from the
fact that both of the threaded ends on the left wing of the Mod IV that I am
repairing, broke off, just below the rod end bearing. This was due to a severe
compression load on the strut due to a pancake landing which collapsed the landing
gear and bent the fuselage. I think in this case some thing had to give,
and it was the threaded end that gave. I this case you are already on the ground
and having a bad day. so the rod ends breaking is not the worst of it.
Keith Schneider
Mod IV 912,almost done
Waynesville, Ohio
--------
Keith
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=140774#140774
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 |
|
Hey guys,
I was all set to go look at, and possibly get a Kitfox this Sunday. I
wanted to buy it and then take my LSA instruction in it. I have an instructor
lined up, who says he will do it. So I called around today, and nobody will
sell me insurance because it is experimental, and I am a student. Even if I got
my license before I bought the plane they said I would need 50-100 hours in
a taildragger before they would concider it. How am I supposed to get 50-100
hours in, if I can't get insureance on it?
Anyone ever come accross a situation like this? Is there any loopholes or anthing?
Andrew
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: | weight and ballance |
Hi guys,
I am involved in rebuilding Dan's early number one. Does any one have the
info on a number one?
If not maybe a number two would do.
I know the floor is still the level point, I believe the leading edge is the
datum
But what is the balance point and what is the envelope.
John Oakley
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: Insurance woes. |
Andrew,
I had a similar problem with my first Kitfox. I purchased it while still a student
but didn't check on insurance until I had my tailwheel endorsement. I think
I contacted Avemco and AOPA insurance people and they were willing to insure
me but the premium was outrageous ($3500+ if I remember correctly). At that
price, I decided I could self insure, basically I looked at it this way...I
figured that the most likely issue I would be facing was a ground loop and being
that it experimental, I would be doing the repair on it myself and could probably
repair damage done during a typical ground loop for this amount or less(unless
I flipped the plane and bent the fuse, tail, wing, etc). I admit I took
a calculated risk but it paid off and I got the hours I needed to bring the
insurance down a bit. I am not advocating flying without insurance by any means
but sometimes there are not many other options especially for young pilots
and experimentals. I will definitely be insuring the Series 7 but there is a
huge difference in cost between my 7 and my old model 3. Good luck to you.
--------
Darin Hawkes
Series 7 (under Construction)
914 Turbo
Ogden, Utah
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=140811#140811
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 |
|
Sure. I've been flying since 1962. The problem has existed for student/low time
pilots, and folks with no taildragger time for a many years. Most folks that
I am acquainted with don't carry hull insurance on their airplanes because
of the prohibitive price and experience requirements of the insurance companies.
I've flown more than 8500 hours, with well over 2000 hours in taildraggers,
and have only damaged one airplane in that time (it was a tricycle gear aircraft).
I've owned a couple airplanes over the years and never did carry hull
insurance because for the price of the insurance premium over a 10 year period,
I could buy a replacement airplane. There is no requirement in the FAA regulations
to carry ANY insurance on an aircraft that is not operated for hire.
John Hart
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lawrence
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 4:41 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Insurance woes.
Hey guys,
I was all set to go look at, and possibly get a Kitfox this Sunday. I
wanted to buy it and then take my LSA instruction in it. I have an instructor
lined up, who says he will do it. So I called around today, and nobody will
sell me insurance because it is experimental, and I am a student. Even if I got
my license before I bought the plane they said I would need 50-100 hours in
a taildragger before they would concider it. How am I supposed to get 50-100
hours in, if I can't get insureance on it?
Anyone ever come accross a situation like this? Is there any loopholes or anthing?
Andrew
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: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. |
At 04:20 AM 10/19/2007, you wrote:
>OK, that makes sense. Except I wonder if one of the lurking engineers on
>the list could calculate the in-flight load on one of those fittings.
Sigh. I know it's fun to hash these things out verbally every time
they arise, but one of the "lurking engineers" has calculated
in-flight loads on these fittings in the past two years. Indeed this
entire subject was re-hashed and therefore appears in the archives.
Since I know no one will look I will quickly summarize my findings:
Using the rod end fittings found on my IV-1200 there was NO WAY you
were going to get to 14g's. (Personally I think that's an urban
legend, since I've not seen any NUMBERS to justify it.) Indeed my rod
ends would fail at something closer to 6g, as they should for this
design. (Utility category limit loads of +3.8g, -1.5g, break at +5.7, -2.25g.).
Though it's not the best way to accommodate a load, there's nothing
terribly wrong with the rod ends when loaded in tension, indeed they
allow for all sorts of manufacturing defects. (There are stress
concentration factors associated with loading threads in tension, but
you design for that. Look around and you'll see all sorts of designs
with treads loaded in tension; like cylinder and head bolts.)
Unfortunately the rod ends are less desirable in compression, since
any misalignment can cause the exposed threaded rod to buckle prematurely.
The bottom line is that there has never been an in-flight break-up of
a Kitfox to our common knowledge, and I personally know of several
who have tried, and probably still are trying. Over 15(?) years
that's a pretty good record.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: Insurance woes. |
Andrew, This is an interesting question. First, I talked to my adjuster
this morning regarding my hard landing that destroyed my airplane. I can
recommend Falcon if they will insure you. The underwriter is AIG and they
have been beyond great in their response and helpfullness.
That said, I would contact EAA and see if they can help. Falcon insurance
through EAA is a bit more expensive than if they will insure you direct as
the increased premium helps underwrite the risk low time pilots bring to the
insured pool.
I wouldn't fly without at least liability. My wife (any passenger) is
insured to $100,000 on my Falcon policy in the case she finds some reason to
sue me. ( I hope she doesn't read this hee hee.) But, FYI, I was in the
emergency room for less than seven hours - a tetanus shot, CAT Scan, other
X-rays and a bill totalling almost $25,000. Add to that $5,000 for the
radiologist to read the x-rays, $3,000 for ambulance rides and you will be
in the first day almost what a nice Model IV would cost. Also keep in mind
that my wife, Kay's (read, the "passenger's") emergency room bill was higher
than mine by more than ten thousand because of the nature of her injuries.
Had she been a friend, I would be liable for that as well. Heath
insurance - yes, but there are deductibles, co-pays and lots of other things
that pop up, but who knows if your CFI would just walk away saying no
problem if he was injured in your airplane, or what his family would do if
worse.
Try EAA.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Lawrence" <1alawrence@earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 2:41 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Insurance woes.
> <1alawrence@earthlink.net>
>
> Hey guys,
> I was all set to go look at, and possibly get a Kitfox this Sunday.
> I wanted to buy it and then take my LSA instruction in it. I have an
> instructor lined up, who says he will do it. So I called around today,
> and nobody will sell me insurance because it is experimental, and I am a
> student. Even if I got my license before I bought the plane they said I
> would need 50-100 hours in a taildragger before they would concider it.
> How am I supposed to get 50-100 hours in, if I can't get insureance on it?
>
> Anyone ever come accross a situation like this? Is there any loopholes or
> anthing?
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
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: Insurance woes. |
At 02:41 PM 10/19/2007, you wrote:
>So I called around today, and nobody will sell me insurance because
>it is experimental, and I am a student. Even if I got my license
>before I bought the plane they said I would need 50-100 hours in a
>taildragger before they would concider it. How am I supposed to get
>50-100 hours in, if I can't get insureance on it?
It seems odd, because when I finished my K-IV I obtained insurance
from AOPA/AIG with about 200 hours TT and 20 hours taildragger. It
cost $700 for $1M liability only. (I self-insure the hull.) The
following year I switched to Avemco at $580 for the same insurance.
So I don't know where they get the 50-100 hours. Indeed, since the
instructor will almost certainly have to be a named insured, it's
his/her hours that really count, not yours. (Anyone who flies my
plane must be named on the policy.) Very strange.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: Insurance woes. |
That is exactly my thought. I konw it is perfectly legal to fly without insurance,
but it is the "What if?" that gets me. Last thing I want is to have someone
take my home and put me in debt for life.
Thanks guys,
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
>From: Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>Sent: Oct 19, 2007 8:10 PM
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Insurance woes.
>
>
>Andrew, This is an interesting question. First, I talked to my adjuster
>this morning regarding my hard landing that destroyed my airplane. I can
>recommend Falcon if they will insure you. The underwriter is AIG and they
>have been beyond great in their response and helpfullness.
>
>That said, I would contact EAA and see if they can help. Falcon insurance
>through EAA is a bit more expensive than if they will insure you direct as
>the increased premium helps underwrite the risk low time pilots bring to the
>insured pool.
>
>I wouldn't fly without at least liability. My wife (any passenger) is
>insured to $100,000 on my Falcon policy in the case she finds some reason to
>sue me. ( I hope she doesn't read this hee hee.) But, FYI, I was in the
>emergency room for less than seven hours - a tetanus shot, CAT Scan, other
>X-rays and a bill totalling almost $25,000. Add to that $5,000 for the
>radiologist to read the x-rays, $3,000 for ambulance rides and you will be
>in the first day almost what a nice Model IV would cost. Also keep in mind
>that my wife, Kay's (read, the "passenger's") emergency room bill was higher
>than mine by more than ten thousand because of the nature of her injuries.
>Had she been a friend, I would be liable for that as well. Heath
>insurance - yes, but there are deductibles, co-pays and lots of other things
>that pop up, but who knows if your CFI would just walk away saying no
>problem if he was injured in your airplane, or what his family would do if
>worse.
>
>Try EAA.
>
>Lowell
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andrew Lawrence" <1alawrence@earthlink.net>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 2:41 PM
>Subject: Kitfox-List: Insurance woes.
>
>
>> <1alawrence@earthlink.net>
>>
>> Hey guys,
>> I was all set to go look at, and possibly get a Kitfox this Sunday.
>> I wanted to buy it and then take my LSA instruction in it. I have an
>> instructor lined up, who says he will do it. So I called around today,
>> and nobody will sell me insurance because it is experimental, and I am a
>> student. Even if I got my license before I bought the plane they said I
>> would need 50-100 hours in a taildragger before they would concider it.
>> How am I supposed to get 50-100 hours in, if I can't get insureance on it?
>>
>> Anyone ever come accross a situation like this? Is there any loopholes or
>> anthing?
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: Insurance woes. |
Andrew, I agree with Lowell on insurance. My classic 4 was ready to fly for 6
years before I bit the bullet and got the tail wheel instruction needed to satisfy
the insurance company. It was well worth it! AIG gave me the best deal.
--------
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=140821#140821
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: Insurance woes. |
I was able to get ins through the EAA plan with a whappppppping 4 hr tail
wheel ( just enough for the endorcement) and about 200 total time in
numerous types ( I have an A&P and test fly most of the aircraft I work on).
They did however require 5 hour in type with instructor and 5 hours solo in
type. They would cover me during the required but no passengers(not
counting the instructor). It is not cheep either
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom Jones
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 7:33 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Insurance woes.
Andrew, I agree with Lowell on insurance. My classic 4 was ready to fly for
6 years before I bit the bullet and got the tail wheel instruction needed to
satisfy the insurance company. It was well worth it! AIG gave me the best
deal.
--------
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=140821#140821
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: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. |
Guy sez:
>Using the rod end fittings found on my IV-1200 there was NO WAY you
>were going to get to 14g's. (Personally I think that's an urban
>legend, since I've not seen any NUMBERS to justify it.)
It's more than a legend, Guy. It was documented in a builder
newsletter from the factory in the late '80s or early '90s, complete
with photos of the physical testing. I have it around here
somewhere... The caption on one of the photos specifically stated
that the sandbags piled on the inverted wing/lift strut assembly
represented 14g.
Because it was a general interest publication, no engineering data
was included.
Mike G.
N728KF
Phoenix, AZ
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: Insurance woes. |
Darin sez:
>...I will definitely be insuring the Series 7 but there is a huge
>difference in cost between my 7 and my old model 3. Good luck to
>you.
To my mind, it is the liability coverage that is at issue. After my
accident I was very happy to have paid for hull coverage--it's what
enabled me to get another 'fox to build--but in this day and age I
would not fly within 100 miles of another human without liability
insurance and certainly would not take passengers with me without it.
My medical bills came to about $500,000 which was paid for by my
company-provided health coverage but my passenger's injuries cost
$125,000 to repair and his health plan came after my insurance
company for reimbursement. If I had not had liability coverage I
would have found myself in court trying to talk them out of taking
half of everything I own.
Like Lowell's policy, mine had a $100,000 per seat limit, which I
consider to be completely inadequate these days. The policy that
covers my Piper Turbo Arrow is "smooth" coverage--there is no
per-seat limit. The entire $1,000,000 is available as needed to
cover passengers and anyone injured on the ground. It costs a little
bit more but when my new 'fox is finished I will get a smooth
coverage liability policy for it as well.
I realize this doesn't help with the original question of how to get
any coverage at all, but if you have any financial assets at all it
is critical you protect them when you fly.
Mike G.
N728KF
Phoenix, AZ
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: weight and ballance |
John sez:
>I know the floor is still the level point, I believe the leading
>edge is the datum
I have never seen a Model I in person but on the later models it is
the bottom of the door frame that is the level reference, not the
floor. Maybe on the early ones they are parallel or close to it.
Mike G.
N728KF
Phoenix, AZ
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: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. |
Guy, how do you justify this statement ?
> Using the rod end fittings found on my IV-1200 there was NO WAY you were going
to get to 14g's. (Personally I think that's an urban legend, since I've not
seen any NUMBERS to justify it.) Indeed my rod ends would fail at something closer
to 6g, as they should for this design. (Utility category limit loads of +3.8g,
-1.5g, break at +5.7, -2.25g.).
>
--------
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=140835#140835
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: Attachment fitting at top of lift struts. |
I have pics and video here as well but I think you will find this satisfying info
on John Mc Bean's Site
http://www.kitfoxaircraft.com/Testing%20information.htm
Nextd tim you see an AVID look close at the wing strit attach to wings points.
There are no rod ends as Dean Wilson designed it to be strong. Not to say the
Kitfox is not strong but I think with a Rod end that just adds one more part
that could fail.
Does anyone have tensiles of a rod end used ?
Also what is tensile of the wrapped end on the Avids ?
--------
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=140836#140836
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Insurance woes. |
I didn't get insurance (I now have liability only, so far) on my 1-
year-old Kitfox until after I had about 290 hours solo, all
taildragger, and about 370 total hours including dual instruction. It
cost me about $560 through Avemco. I had tried to get insurance
through EAA right at Airventure, but for some reason they couldn't
sign me up right then and there, saying that I had to call and do the
"leg work" over the phone. I went to the Avemco booth, and was signed
up immediately, with coverage to begin that night at midnight
(Thursday).
The reason for the quick need to sign up was that I was told that I
would be asked if I had insurance if I were to participate in the
Homebuilder's Review flight prior to Friday's airshow. I didn't want
to lie, so I got insured real quick. I discovered later that proof of
insurance was NOT asked for, and in fact, the question was not put to
me.
Yes, sports fans, I made my cross-country trek out west sans
insurance....perhaps not my brightest hour, but nonetheless....
Lynn Matteson
Grass Lake, Michigan
Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
flying w/420+ hrs
do not archive
On Oct 19, 2007, at 8:32 PM, Tom Jones wrote:
>
> Andrew, I agree with Lowell on insurance. My classic 4 was ready
> to fly for 6 years before I bit the bullet and got the tail wheel
> instruction needed to satisfy the insurance company. It was well
> worth it! AIG gave me the best deal.
>
> --------
> 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=140821#140821
>
>
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! --
|