Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:41 AM - Hi all Kitfoxers (Steve Shinabery)
2. 04:58 AM - Re: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) (Paul Seehafer)
3. 05:01 AM - Re: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) (Paul Seehafer)
4. 05:03 AM - Re: Time to Fold Wings (Noel Loveys)
5. 05:21 AM - Re: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) (Noel Loveys)
6. 05:47 AM - Re: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) (akflyer)
7. 06:04 AM - Re: Trailering Kitfox WAS: King Fox rims (Tom Jones)
8. 07:55 AM - Re: Re: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) (Michael Gibbs)
9. 08:22 AM - Re: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) (eskflyer)
10. 08:41 AM - Re: Time to Fold Wings (Guy Buchanan)
11. 09:39 AM - Re: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) (RRTRACK@aol.com)
12. 10:20 AM - Fuel flow meter location (Jose M. Toro)
13. 10:40 AM - Re: Re: Trailering Kitfox WAS: King Fox rims (Noel Loveys)
14. 11:59 AM - Trailer. Contains pictures may be a large file. (Noel Loveys)
15. 01:42 PM - Re: Trailer. Contains pictures may be a large file. (Tom Jones)
16. 04:55 PM - Re: Re: Trailer. Contains pictures may be a large file. (Noel Loveys)
17. 05:00 PM - Re: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) (84KF)
18. 05:08 PM - Re: Time to Fold Wings (kirk hull)
19. 07:03 PM - Re: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) (Michael Gibbs)
20. 10:12 PM - KF S5 NSI Inverted? (debrun26@juno.com)
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: | Hi all Kitfoxers |
we are having a Hot Dog and Turtle Soup this Sunday at 1:00pm Fly In if
weather is good. At Lake Field Airport,,CQA Celina Ohio,,we are located
at the south west corner of Grand Lake St.Marys.Sunday Nov.11 th
2007.all are wellcome.This is Home to Steve Shinabery, N554KF KF2
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: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) |
Steve,
I'm all for what you are saying as that would allow a lot more light
aircraft to be flown as LSA's. And that would be really great for a lot of
people.
But during Oshkosh this year I heard a couple of FAA people talking about
this issue, and (fwiw) they were saying it was already in the works to
rewrite the LSA rule to further clarify the 1320/1430 lbs as "aircraft gross
weight". Personally, I wish they would leave it alone and let us include
aircraft like our 1550 lb Kitfoxes, but from what I heard, it appears they
are already on this issue.
So I hope there aren't any pilots out there buying airplanes with gross
weights over the 1320/1430 lb numbers hoping to be able to fly them as a
sport pilot. These same FAA people said if the rule as it is written were
to be challenged, a board of review would be assigned to interpret the rule,
and the FAA would base their enforcement actions on the boards
interpretation. But like my retired IRS auditor friend told me, it is a
rare case to have a board of review not agree with the government agency, as
they will be reminded to interpret the rule as the rule was intended when
written. In this case, I think it is more than obvious the FAA intended (or
meant to say) "aircraft gross weight" but just slipped up in their final
wording.
I hope you don't think I'm arguing with you, as I'm not. Technically, from
what I heard the FAA is "unofficially" admitting they slipped up. So after
hearing that conversation, I know you were right all along. I have been
holding back from telling anyone all this as what I heard is really only
heresay. But it would be a disservice to my friends here on the list if I
didn't tell everyone what I heard. From here on in, everyone can make their
own mind up as to whether or not they want to challenge the FAA on this. I
know I won't.
Paul Seehafer
Kitfox IV 912ul amphib
Central Wisconsin
----- Original Message -----
From: "84KF" <avidfox@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale)
>
> Excellent.
> And let's not forget, quoted from the same source.....
>
> " The maximum weight of
> a light-sport aircraft is the sum of:
> (1) Aircraft empty weight;
> (2) Weight of the passenger for each
> seat installed;
> (3) Baggage allowance for each
> passenger; and
> (4) Full fuel, including a minimum of
> the half-hour fuel reserve required for
> day visual flight rules in 91.151(a)(1).
>
> You won't find the term "Gross weight" used, or implied, anywhere by
> the FAA in regards to LSA issues. Period.
>
>
>
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: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) |
Steve,
I'm all for what you are saying as that would allow a lot more light
aircraft to be flown as LSA's. And that would be really great for a lot of
people.
But during Oshkosh this year I heard a couple of FAA people talking about
this issue, and (fwiw) they were saying it was already in the works to
rewrite the LSA rule to further clarify the 1320/1430 lbs as "aircraft gross
weight". Personally, I wish they would leave it alone and let us include
aircraft like our 1550 lb Kitfoxes, but from what I heard, it appears they
are already on this issue.
So I hope there aren't any pilots out there buying airplanes with gross
weights over the 1320/1430 lb numbers hoping to be able to fly them as a
sport pilot. These same FAA people said if the rule as it is written were
to be challenged, a board of review would be assigned to interpret the rule,
and the FAA would base their enforcement actions on the boards
interpretation. But like my retired IRS auditor friend told me, it is a
rare case to have a board of review not agree with the government agency, as
they will be reminded to interpret the rule as the rule was intended when
written. In this case, I think it is more than obvious the FAA intended (or
meant to say) "aircraft gross weight" but just slipped up in their final
wording.
I hope you don't think I'm arguing with you, as I'm not. Technically, from
what I heard the FAA is "unofficially" admitting they slipped up. So after
hearing that conversation, I know you were right all along. I have been
holding back from telling anyone all this as what I heard is really only
heresay. But it would be a disservice to my friends here on the list if I
didn't tell everyone what I heard. From here on in, everyone can make their
own mind up as to whether or not they want to challenge the FAA on this. I
know I won't.
Paul Seehafer
Kitfox IV 912ul amphib
Central Wisconsin
----- Original Message -----
From: "84KF" <avidfox@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale)
>
> Excellent.
> And let's not forget, quoted from the same source.....
>
> " The maximum weight of
> a light-sport aircraft is the sum of:
> (1) Aircraft empty weight;
> (2) Weight of the passenger for each
> seat installed;
> (3) Baggage allowance for each
> passenger; and
> (4) Full fuel, including a minimum of
> the half-hour fuel reserve required for
> day visual flight rules in 91.151(a)(1).
>
> You won't find the term "Gross weight" used, or implied, anywhere by
> the FAA in regards to LSA issues. Period.
>
>
>
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: | Time to Fold Wings |
Remember that $450 is in your pocket not in the hangar owners. $450 can buy
a few gallons of gas or a new instrument every month.
If you are regular you probably spend more time than that on the throne
everyday. Lets see there are seven days in a week....... Is that wasted
(pun intended) time?
When I was trained I was trained to do a thorough pre flight and then a full
flight plan including a flight W&B and navigation with alternates.
Calculating and filling out the W&B, nav charts, headings, fuel consumption,
dead reckoning and a flight itinerary chews up quite a bit of time too. I
realize all this paper work isn't necessary for every flight but it helps to
keep me sharp.
Noel
Do Not Archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Guy Buchanan
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 10:53 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Time to Fold Wings
>
>
>
> Today I timed myself as I put the plane into it's folding wing
> "hangar". It took just over seven minutes, rather than the twenty
> seconds it would have taken to push it into a full size hangar. I'm
> guessing the set-up takes about the same time, for a grand total of
> 14 minutes of wing folding overhead per flight. If I fly four times a
> week, it's costing me almost an hour a week, or four hours a month,
> which works out to about $500 per month to fold the wings. Hmmm.
> Maybe I should just rent the hangar. ($450 per month, versus the $100
> per month I'm paying for a tie-down now.) My break even is therefore
> 12 flights per month. Guess I'm going to have to give this
> more thought.
>
>
> 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: | Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) |
Michael:
So, some of the advantages of registering experimental are, you can have;
retractable gear, IFA props and night/IFR capability and heavier gross
weights. But you must have the proper license to take advantage of those
things.
Very interesting.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Michael Gibbs
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 1:50 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale)
>
>
> <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Scott asks:
>
> >If you register as an experimental but still fit
> >the limits of a LSA can't you still fly it with
> >a LSA liscence?
>
> Yes, Noel and Mark are mistaken, but it's a sport
> pilot license not an LSA license. Sport pilots
> can fly any experimental, experimental light
> sport, or certified aircraft that meets the
> restrictions for a light sport aircraft:
>
> "...as discussed in the section-by-section
> preamble discussion for 1.1, Definition of
> Light-Sport Aircraft, a sport pilot can operate
> an aircraft meeting the light-sport aircraft
> definition in 1.1, regardless of the
> airworthiness certificate issued."
>
> --Final Rule, Docket No. FAA-2001-11133; Amendment No. 1-53;
> 21-85; 43-39; 45-24; 61-110; 65-45; 91-282
>
> The FAA considers any airplane (other rules apply
> to helicopters and lighter-than-air vehicles) to
> be a "light sport aircraft" if it has met the
> following criteria continuously since its
> original certification:
>
> Maximum takeoff weight of 1320 lbs for land planes or 1430
> for float planes.
> Maximum airspeed of 120 KCAS.
> Maximum stall speed (Vsi) of 45 KCAS at max takeoff weight.
> Maximum seating capacity of 2.
> Maximum of one engine.
> A fixed or ground adjustable prop.
> A non-pressurized cabin.
> Fixed landing gear (except for float planes).
>
> For more information, check out:
> <http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airmen_certification
/sport_pilot/>.
Mike G.
N728KF
Phoenix, AZ
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: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) |
MichaelGibbs(at)cox.net wrote:
> Steve sez:
>
>
> > You won't find the term "Gross weight" used, or implied, anywhere by
> > the FAA in regards to LSA issues. Period.
> >
> >
>
> What does that have to do with the discussion, Steve? Just want to
> beat that dead horse or yours some more?
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF
> Phoenix, AZ
Take a look at your original post, you pasted it.. Steve was just try to help
clarify something YOU posted. Based on Pauls reply... nevermind.... I dont know
how many people here deal with code books or have to make interpretations,
I know I do every day. I NEVER take someone elses word on a code issue, look
it up myself to assure we are performing up par. I am still amazed that people
like you have to argue over something they were told, not what is in black
and white, in the government publication, right in front of you and about 3rd
grade comprehension level.
This is the last time I will ever post on this issue so dont get all worked up
thinking I want to start a war again.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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=144118#144118
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: Trailering Kitfox WAS: King Fox rims |
[quote="Float Flyr"]Loading ramps that are hinged to flip up, reverse and trap
the main gear is a real time saver.
Noel, can you measure the height of your trailer deck and the length of the ramps?
I want to try your idea on the ramps. My trailer is kind of high so my current
ramps are eight feet long. I don't want the incline to be too steep.
--------
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=144123#144123
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: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) |
Steve sed:
> > > You won't find the term "Gross weight" used, or implied, anywhere by
> > > the FAA in regards to LSA issues. Period.
To which I replied:
> > What does that have to do with the discussion, Steve? Just want to
> > beat that dead horse or yours some more?
To which Leonard sez:
>Take a look at your original post, you pasted it.. Steve was just
>try to help clarify something YOU posted.
The original issue was whether or not a sport pilot is limited to
operating airplanes certificated as LSAs and the answer is no, they
can fly any type of airplane that meets the performance limitations.
I listed the performance limitations. I didn't mention "gross
weight" and the FAA doesn't mention "gross weight". Why was it
necessary for Steve to point out what wasn't mentioned? They also
don't mention what type of upholstery the plane has, did you want to
bring that up as well?
>I am still amazed that people like you have to argue over something
>they were told, not what is in black and white, in the government
>publication, right in front of you and about 3rd grade comprehension
>level.
People like me? I quoted the FAA directly from the docket and
provided a link to the FAA's web site. I did not argue with anyone
nor did I rely on hearsay. Apparently your reading comprehension
fell a bit short.
I am taking Steve to task simply because he has a long history of
harping on the "gross weight" versus "maximum takeoff weight" issue
and he decided to hijack this topic to bring up his pet peeve again.
I don't care what kind of airplane he flies or what type of license
he uses to do so, but if he encourages others to follow his
interpretation of the rules and they suffer from the process Paul
describes (i.e., "... it is a rare case to have a board of review not
agree with the government agency...") he is culpable.
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: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) |
Hell im takin the 5th on this one and drinking it to forget all the bull . Yes
it is relevant to the subject of LSA aircraft and if you use the directive as
written then many more aircraft are available to pilots who fly in the lsa aircraft
category. If the Faa wrote it wrong then that is there fault and no one
can argue until it is rewritten and made law .
Steve has a great point and im stickin to it .
DO not archive
Sig to follow below
--------
FLY FUN FLY LOW FLY SLOW
John Perry
Kitfox 2 N718PD
582 cbox 2:62-1 IVO IFA
Leni's FULL-LOTUS floats on MY plane forever
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144161#144161
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: | Time to Fold Wings |
At 05:02 AM 11/6/2007, you wrote:
>Remember that $450 is in your pocket not in the hangar owners. $450 can buy
>a few gallons of gas or a new instrument every month.
Lessee now. If it costs $20/hr. in fuel, then the total cost to fly
is about $60/hr. So if I don't use the hangar I've got an extra $350
per month to fly so I can fly an additional five or six hours per
month! I LOVE YOUR MATH!
(Of course, if I fly another five hours per month, it costs me about
$150 in set up time. . . Oh I give up. I think I'll go flying.)
>If you are regular you probably spend more time than that on the throne
>everyday. Lets see there are seven days in a week....... Is that wasted
>(pun intended) time?
Not at all. All you have to do is install your computer in the
bathroom. HAHAHAHAHA!
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
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: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) |
I never stated a Sport Pilot could not fly an experimental or a certified
aircraft if it meets the qualifications for LSA. They sure can, but they would
be limited by SP rules for it's use. I just stated there are a lot of pilots
out there that are looking for LSA qualified planes. Another advantage of an
LSA aircraft is you do not have to be the builder to be able to do the
annual of your plane if you take the FAA approved coarse.
My favorite time to fly is the last hour of the day when the weather calms
down. I usually fly until about 30 minutes after sunset to get a taste of
night flying in as well. I would miss that if flying under SP rules.
Mark
Kitfox 5 Vixen
912UL IVO
Hartford, Wisconsin
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: | Fuel flow meter location |
Hi all:
Where is the right place to locate the fuel flow sensor in the fuel system? My
engine is a Jab 2200 and the signal will go to an EIS.
Thanks!
Jose Toro
__________________________________________________
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: Trailering Kitfox WAS: King Fox rims |
Tom do you have auto cad? If so I can even draw it up for you.
Next post will have the measurements
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom Jones
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:34 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Trailering Kitfox WAS: King Fox rims
>
>
>
> [quote="Float Flyr"]Loading ramps that are hinged to flip up,
> reverse and trap the main gear is a real time saver.
>
> Noel, can you measure the height of your trailer deck and the
> length of the ramps? I want to try your idea on the ramps.
> My trailer is kind of high so my current ramps are eight feet
> long. I don't want the incline to be too steep.
>
> --------
> 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=144123#144123
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Trailer. Contains pictures may be a large file. |
I'm back... Last post was sent at 3:05 local it was 3:25 when I got
back in
the door.
What I did in that 20 minutes was; unlock the shed and retrieve one ramp
to
measure, haul the trailer form the spot I had it parked most of the
summer
and then change the short tow arm for the long tow arm. I also took
pictures
of that.
To begin the trailer at the rear lip when on my quad is 23.5" high to
the
top of the platform. If it were on the car it would be around 24" high.
The ramps are constructed of 1" X 1" steel with class A crusher screen
forming the tire surface. The ramps are 47" long and 10.75" wide. I
used
small pieces of 1X1 stock welded to the back lip of the trailer to form
the
hinges for the ramps.
Pictures:
This picture shows the general construction of the ramps. Each place
where
the screen touches the frame was mig welded.
A close up of the cleats I welded to the trailer. 5/16 bolts hold the
ramps
to the trailer and form the hinge. I also had a temporary block behind
the
hinge on the deck for towing the trailer with the ramps in place but
without
the plane.
A close up of where I cut the tow arm... So I'm not too good with a
cutting
wheel. This picture also shows the 1/2" bolts I use as tow pins. They
are
held in place with cotter pins only as the load is completely shear.
The tow arm is off.
Extended tow arm in place. Note the platform (2X6) for the tail wheel to
roll in while loading/unloading.
Long tow arm installed and locked in place les than 20 min. Tools: ball
peen hammer and a bit of chain lube to ease inserting long arm. The
elongated arm is a lot heavier stock than the original tow arm. I use
an
extension cord (four conductor) for the trailer lights.
Dimensions for the deck of the trailer are 10ft. long and 8'5" wide.
The
trailer is designed to carry two full size snowmobiles which can weigh
close
to 700 lb each. when I set up the trailer for the first time and
measured
where to put my wheel blocks I rolled the plane back until I had around
50
lb. on the hitch. It towed the plane beautifully. With that long arm
backing up is also easy.
Hope this post is not too large for the dialup guys. I tried to make
the
pictures small but legible.
Thank god for spell check!
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom Jones
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:34 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Trailering Kitfox WAS: King Fox rims
>
>
>
> [quote="Float Flyr"]Loading ramps that are hinged to flip up,
> reverse and trap the main gear is a real time saver.
>
> Noel, can you measure the height of your trailer deck and the
> length of the ramps? I want to try your idea on the ramps.
> My trailer is kind of high so my current ramps are eight feet
> long. I don't want the incline to be too steep.
>
> --------
> 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=144123#144123
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Trailer. Contains pictures may be a large file. |
Thanks for the trailer specs Noel! I don't have Auto Cad but the pictures and
measurements do give me the information I need.
--------
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=144218#144218
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: Trailer. Contains pictures may be a large file. |
Is your trailer around the same height?
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom Jones
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 6:12 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Trailer. Contains pictures may be a
> large file.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the trailer specs Noel! I don't have Auto Cad
> but the pictures and measurements do give me the information I need.
>
> --------
> 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=144218#144218
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) |
Paul,
Thank you for your open and honest reply. And no, I don't consider
this an argument, but a open exchange of ideas, thoughts and
information. And that's good.
If I may.....
As of today, there is NO 'Notice of Proposed Rule making' on the FAA
Docket for any changes to the existing text of the Final Rule.
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/
Since the "Final Rule" has been in effect, the only changes to date have been:
1. permit development of lighter-than-air Light Sport Aircraft (LSA),
i.e. hot air
balloons, and to LTA lighter than air and that provided for an
INCREASE in their weight limits.
2. allow retractable landing gear for LSA intended for operation on water.
Published April 19, 2007; Changes to the Definition of Certain
Light-Sport Aircraft
(72 FR 19661). No adverse comments were received.
The rule became effective on June 4, 2007.
Both of these changes increased the benefits and privileges under the Rule.
No attempt was made at that time to reduce privileges or change
weight definitions, including "maximum takeoff weight", which remains
the same. The FAA continues to state that the provided definition
will be used to define "maximum takeoff weight"
" In this case, I think it is more than obvious the FAA intended (or
meant to say) "aircraft gross weight" but just slipped up in their final
wording."
I disagree, and would have a hard time believing that that type of
oversight would exist.
Would you want us to believe that from February 5, 2002, the original
NPRM date, to July 27, 2004, a 2+ year consideration period, open for,
and receiving 4700 public comments, that they, the DOT and FAA, just
'forgot'. And also, just forgot to 'fix' things during the recent
changes?
Why didn't they just say 'gross weight' to begin with... ? Because it
has no bearing on the intention of the 'maximum inertia' concept they
envisioned, and approved. All the bases are covered under the "maximum
takeoff weight" definition. From day one I have stated that the Final
Rule is fair and objective.
On the lighter side:
"....during Oshkosh this year I heard a couple of FAA people talking....."
Perhaps these were the same ones who "grounded" Bob Hoover", because
he didn't "look" right to THEM.
Or the ones who put "RedTags" (grounded) on certain aircraft that had
the "new" 'Q-Tip' propellers because the "tips were bent".
Again, I too am not arguing, I am discussing.
Thanks again for your positive input.
Steve
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: | Time to Fold Wings |
$450 a month for hanger rent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You need to find a
smaller airport. Roosterville/ 0N0 is $70 a month and I keep my boat in the
hanger too. Its only 3000 X 20 but that is 5x more then you need for a
Kitfox.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 7:03 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Time to Fold Wings
Remember that $450 is in your pocket not in the hangar owners. $450 can buy
a few gallons of gas or a new instrument every month.
If you are regular you probably spend more time than that on the throne
everyday. Lets see there are seven days in a week....... Is that wasted
(pun intended) time?
When I was trained I was trained to do a thorough pre flight and then a full
flight plan including a flight W&B and navigation with alternates.
Calculating and filling out the W&B, nav charts, headings, fuel consumption,
dead reckoning and a flight itinerary chews up quite a bit of time too. I
realize all this paper work isn't necessary for every flight but it helps to
keep me sharp.
Noel
Do Not Archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Guy Buchanan
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 10:53 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Time to Fold Wings
>
>
>
> Today I timed myself as I put the plane into it's folding wing
> "hangar". It took just over seven minutes, rather than the twenty
> seconds it would have taken to push it into a full size hangar. I'm
> guessing the set-up takes about the same time, for a grand total of
> 14 minutes of wing folding overhead per flight. If I fly four times a
> week, it's costing me almost an hour a week, or four hours a month,
> which works out to about $500 per month to fold the wings. Hmmm.
> Maybe I should just rent the hangar. ($450 per month, versus the $100
> per month I'm paying for a tie-down now.) My break even is therefore
> 12 flights per month. Guess I'm going to have to give this
> more thought.
>
>
> Guy Buchanan
> San Diego, CA
> K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) |
Paul had sed:
>" In this case, I think it is more than obvious the FAA intended (or
>meant to say) "aircraft gross weight" but just slipped up in their final
>wording."
To which Steve sez:
>I disagree, and would have a hard time believing that that type of
>oversight would exist.
I think Steve is exactly right. Even given how slowly our federal
bureaucracy sometimes moves, if the FAA had intended to refer to max
gross weight they would have changed it a long time ago.
Mike G.
N728KF
Phoenix, AZ
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: | KF S5 NSI Inverted? |
Just wondering~ Can the standard NSI conversion Subaru S5 be flown inve
rted? It has the dry sump oil system with the remote oil tank mounted t
o the firewall. Thanks, Layne Anch., Ak. S5 NSI Sooby
_____________________________________________________________
Click now to choose from thousands of designs for your checks!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iifWiftLJ0jaNjB7Kkssadn
ZAcvBa5yIAt9c2B2jnMesWi52r/
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! --
|