Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:08 AM - Re: FAA Avoidance (Keith C.)
2. 06:39 AM - Re: This feud isn't pretty! (m4785@bellsouth.net)
3. 06:48 AM - Rule breakers Was: Re: This feud isn't pretty! (John W. Hart)
4. 06:58 AM - Videos of Kitfox 5 Lycoming o-235 (Brad)
5. 07:07 AM - Re: Re: cabin heater muff style (Lynn Matteson)
6. 07:13 AM - Rule breakers Was: Re: This feud isn't pretty! (kitfoxmike)
7. 07:31 AM - Re: Rule breakers Was: Re: This feud isn't pretty! (Lynn Matteson)
8. 07:34 AM - (OFF TOPIC) Freedom (Michel Verheughe)
9. 07:37 AM - Re: FAA Avoidance (kitfoxmike)
10. 07:42 AM - Re: Videos of Kitfox 5 Lycoming o-235 (Tom Jones)
11. 07:44 AM - Videos of Kitfox 5 Lycoming o-235 (fox5flyer)
12. 07:54 AM - Re: Re: cabin heater muff style (john oakley)
13. 08:22 AM - Re: cabin heater muff style (Don G)
14. 08:38 AM - Re: (OFF TOPIC) Freedom (Keith C.)
15. 08:52 AM - Re: (OFF TOPIC) Freedom (Keith C.)
16. 09:13 AM - Re: Rule breakers Was: Re: This feud isn't pretty! (Michael Gibbs)
17. 10:06 AM - Re: Rule breakers Was: Re: This feud isn't pretty! (Guy Buchanan)
18. 10:06 AM - Re: Re: cabin heater muff style (Guy Buchanan)
19. 10:06 AM - Re: Re: (OFF TOPIC) Freedom (Guy Buchanan)
20. 10:06 AM - Re: Re: FAA Avoidance (Guy Buchanan)
21. 10:17 AM - Re: Re: cabin heater muff style (Lynn Matteson)
22. 10:26 AM - Kitfox List Protocol (Guy Buchanan)
23. 11:42 AM - Re: Kitfox List Protocol (steve eccles)
24. 12:05 PM - Re: (OFF TOPIC) Freedom (Dave G.)
25. 12:15 PM - Re: Kitfox List Protocol (Guy Buchanan)
26. 12:20 PM - Re: Re: (OFF TOPIC) Freedom (Guy Buchanan)
27. 12:34 PM - Re: Kitfox List Protocol (Keith C.)
28. 12:34 PM - Re: Rule breakers Was: Re: This feud isn't pretty! (John W. Hart)
29. 12:37 PM - Re: Kitfox List Protocol (Guy Buchanan)
30. 12:46 PM - Apologies Again (Guy Buchanan)
31. 01:39 PM - Re: Videos of Kitfox 5 Lycoming o-235 (Dee Young)
32. 02:16 PM - Re: Videos of Kitfox 5 Lycoming o-235 (Brad)
33. 05:17 PM - Re: Videos of Kitfox 5 Lycoming o-235 (fox5flyer)
34. 05:17 PM - Re: Apologies Again (steve eccles)
35. 05:53 PM - Re: Kitfox Biplane (patrick reilly)
36. 07:27 PM - Re: Kitfox Biplane (av8rps)
37. 09:22 PM - Re: Short Changing Ourselves!! (av8rps)
38. 10:08 PM - Re: This feud isn't pretty! (Mdkitfox@aol.com)
39. 11:06 PM - Re: This feud isn't pretty! (Mdkitfox@aol.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: | Re: FAA Avoidance |
Thank you Guy,
Recently a discussion was going on a at my house about the person that was
released from prison after 20+ years in prison BECAUSE HE WAS INNOCENT. Our
system says "innocent until proven guilty" and we would rather 10 guilties
go free than one innocent convicted. Our system is flawed, but it is one
of, if not, the best "freedom oriented" systems in the world. We have the
options of working to change it (better or worse), to outwardly protest it,
or to live with it. Those are our freedoms. To not use the FAA for our and
everyones protection is letting your freedom go. If you can't live with that
the "Love it or leave it" comes into play. You don't have to love every
little thing but I believe we are still the Greatest Nation of all time and
that is what we love, that word "Freedom".
Keith C.
Kitfox Wannabe
C-150 N8798G
Sacramento, CA (MHR)
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Buchanan" <bnn@nethere.com>
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:52 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: FAA Avoidance
>
> At 04:53 PM 1/4/2008, you wrote:
>>We should be saying, we are not going to the FAA for anything period, for
>>any reason. Let them find out about pilots on THEIR OWN.
>
> Mike,
> I'm guessing you're either being facetious, or you use some other
> means of enforcement. (Baseball bat?) Is it really OK for someone to drink
> and fly? Is it OK for them to do low-level aerobatics over dense
> residential areas? How about just buzzing houses? Are you really promoting
> anarchy in the pattern? Or do you do recommend some kind of "personal"
> enforcement?
> I could care less what someone does to himself. I strenuously
> object, though, when they try to take away my flying privileges. (I love
> flying.) That means I get upset when a pilot does anything to upset the
> "little people", who don't understand safety, only perceptions of safety.
> (I also get upset when pilots kill passengers, because I never met a pilot
> who gave realistic risk assessments to their passengers: e.g. "We're over
> gross and it's hot as hell, but we're going to go ahead and take off
> down-wind because I think we'll make it. The book says we'll all die, but
> I think we'll make it.")
> Most countries don't even allow GA. In America we can fly almost
> anything almost anywhere almost anytime. We get to put the general public
> in danger of death and destruction WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. What's more, we
> don't even have to fly certified aircraft anymore! And all this is done
> under the purview of the FAA.
> If you think about it a little bit, you'll realize that the FAA is
> probably on our side. A few statistics: (Source:
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/factcard.pdf)
>
> 1. Out of 5288 public use airports, only 1381 are served by the airline
> industry.
> 2. 81% of departures were GA.
> 3. 59% of hours flown were GA.
>
> I suspect the majority of FAA personnel would be rather upset at
> the demise of general aviation, as they would probably loose their job.
> (Not to mention how many are pilots.)
> Now I suppose we could take on enforcement ourselves. A lot of
> people have taken to doing that while driving. It's usually called "road
> rage" and it's seldom constructive. We, the public, have constructed the
> FAA and all the other codes and enforcement to convince the non-flying
> public that it is safe for us to fly over their heads. I suggest we use
> the FAA to maintain that perception, since the alternative is anarchy, or
> something akin to "air-rage", neither of which will endear us to the
> ground-bound. If there are problems with the FAA then we should fix them.
> We are not defenseless, far from it.
>
>
> Guy Buchanan
> San Diego, CA
> K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
>
>
>
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: This feud isn't pretty! |
Hi all,I have been off the list for a while due to my forced landing in my Kitfox4,but
have tried to keep up with some of the emails.I agrre with Jim on this
subject,since I have just been through a FAA and NTSB investigation concerninig
my crash.I answered all direct questions and facts from the FAA and did not
offer any personal opinions,I made sure my log books and paperwork was in order
when they asked for these items and I seemed to fair well through the investigation,even
though I was a little nervous The Faa was patient with me and extended
me kindness,also helped me get through the tech stuff in the investigation.So
with that said I dont feel that The Faa is out delibertly to get us,I think
they are a governing agency that covers all concerns of the general public
and us Pilots as a whole.I have been a long time member of the EAA and if needed
I would have sought out there help in my matters with the Faa as they are
like us,the small guy flying who needs a bigger voic
e...An
yways all is well now and I have returned to flying my Aventura single place sea
plane,However I sure do miss my Kitfox.
I only had 2 injuries...my pride and my pocket book.......lol
God Bless and happy landings to all.........Mark N61AC
-------------- Original message from "Jim Crowder" <jcrowder@lpbroadband.net>:
--------------
>
> What is it about email lists and the "road rage" that sometimes develops.
> Mean and cruel things are said by people who face to face are very likely
> decent people. Like "rolled up in a ball." Why not just let the issue drop
> and do your own things. Don't keep arguing an issue that we as a list will
> never seem to agree on--Steve.
>
> On the other side having two nearly identical, or identical airplanes and
> saying one can, and one cannot, be flown as LSA compliant is stupid, unfair,
> and if one had enough money to fight, probably not enforceable. I also
> suspect that if the paperwork in the plane, (and only the weight and balance
> papers show it), show the 1320 lbs., and the plane is otherwise compliant,
> it will never be questioned.
>
> While it is big to some in our group, it's not a big issue in the general
> flying community and probably not with the FAA--unless we push their nose
> into it. But here is the point, why are some so uptight about Steve and
> those who choose to see it differently, or as a grey area. Are we afraid
> someone else is going to have some fun flying? Do we think it is somehow
> immoral and that they are doing something that endangers the public?
> Baloney. I know a lot of people who fly without insurance and not all of
> them are flying experimental. Most states don't require insurance and
> aircraft insurance companies write a lot of pretty meager overages and are
> very apt to find something to deny coverage over anyway. If we think they
> are taking a risk on there selves with the FAA, what is the concern to us?
> As pilots we should be on their side, not defending a silly unfair rule.
>
> It's a new year and lets look at what we agree on. I for one hate the hard
> edge and meanness I read in some of our emails. Like I said in the subject
> line I changed--This feud isn't pretty! I like all of you and hope I
> haven't made enemies here. It is not my intent.
>
> Jim Crowder
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of kitfoxmike
> > Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 1:22 PM
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Short Changing Ourselves!!
> >
> >
> >
> > If
> > you are that confident, why don't you post your tail number and
> > address and we'll have the FAA come over and confirm your assertion?
> > Shouldn't be a problem, right? We could put this to bed right now
> > and shut all the "experts" up.
> >
> > Mike G.
> > N728KF
> > Phoenix, AZ[/quote]
> >
> > Wow what a statement, you are the type of person I stay away from.
> >
> > It's people like you that give the FAA the power they have and
> > harm aviation.
> >
> > --------
> > kitfoxmike
> > model IV, 1200
> > speedster
> > 912ul
> > building
> > RV7a
> > slowbuild wings, fuse, finish kit
> > "if you're not getting razzed from pilots or the FAA then
> > you're not flying enough"
> > Do not archive
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=155992#155992
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
<html>
<!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
<head></head>
<body>
<!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Hi all,I have been off the list for a while due to my forced landing in my Kitfox4,but
have tried to keep up with some of the emails.I agrre with Jim on this
subject,since I have just been through a FAA and NTSB investigation concerninig
my crash.I answered all direct questions and facts from the FAA and did
not offer any personal opinions,I made sure my log books and paperwork was in
order when they asked for these items and I seemed to fair well through the investigation,even
though I was a little nervous The Faa was patient with me and
extended me kindness,also helped me get through the tech stuff in the investigation.So
with that said I dont feel that The Faa is out delibertly to get us,I
think they are a governing agency that covers all concerns of the general public
and us Pilots as a whole.I have been a long time member of the EAA and if
needed I would have sought out there help in my matters with the Faa as they
are like us,the small guy flying who needs a bigger v
oice..
.Anyways all is well now and I have returned to flying my Aventura single place
sea plane,However I sure do miss my Kitfox.</P>
<P> I only had 2 injuries...my pride and my pocket book.......lol</P>
<P> God Bless and happy landings to all.........Mark N61AC<BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message from "Jim Crowder" <jcrowder@lpbroadband.net>:
-------------- <BR><BR><BR>> --> Kitfox-List message posted
by: "Jim Crowder" <JCROWDER@LPBROADBAND.NET><BR>> <BR>> What is it about
email lists and the "road rage" that sometimes develops. <BR>> Mean and
cruel things are said by people who face to face are very likely <BR>> decent
people. Like "rolled up in a ball." Why not just let the issue drop <BR>>
and do your own things. Don't keep arguing an issue that we as a list will
<BR>> never seem to agree on--Steve. <BR>> <BR>> On the other side having
two nearly identical, or identical airplanes and <BR>> saying one can,
and one cannot, be flown as LSA compliant is stupid, unfair, <BR>> and if
one had enough money to fight, probably not enforceable. I also <BR>> suspect
that if the paperwork in the plane, (and only the
weigh
t and balance <BR>> papers show it), show the 1320 lbs., and the plane is otherwise
compliant, <BR>> it will never be questioned. <BR>> <BR>> While
it is big to some in our group, it's not a big issue in the general <BR>>
flying community and probably not with the FAA--unless we push their nose <BR>>
into it. But here is the point, why are some so uptight about Steve and
<BR>> those who choose to see it differently, or as a grey area. Are we afraid
<BR>> someone else is going to have some fun flying? Do we think it is
somehow <BR>> immoral and that they are doing something that endangers the
public? <BR>> Baloney. I know a lot of people who fly without insurance and
not all of <BR>> them are flying experimental. Most states don't require
insurance and <BR>> aircraft insurance companies write a lot of pretty meager
overages and are <BR>> very apt to find something to deny coverage over
anyway. If we think they <BR>> are taking a risk o
n ther
e selves with the FAA, what is the concern to us? <BR>> As pilots we should be on their side, not defending a silly unfair rule. <BR>> <BR>> It's a new year and lets look at what we agree on. I for one hate the hard <BR>> edge and meanness I read in some of our emails. Like I said in the subject <BR>> line I changed--This feud isn't pretty! I like all of you and hope I <BR>> haven't made enemies here. It is not my intent. <BR>> <BR>> Jim Crowder <BR>> <BR>> > -----Original Message----- <BR>> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com <BR>> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of kitfoxmike <BR>> > Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 1:22 PM <BR>> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com <BR>> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Short Changing Ourselves!! <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxmike" <CUSTOMTRANS@QWEST.NET><BR>> > <BR>> > If <BR>> &g
t; you
are that confident, why don't you post your tail number and <BR>> > address
and we'll have the FAA come over and confirm your assertion? <BR>> >
Shouldn't be a problem, right? We could put this to bed right now <BR>> >
and shut all the "experts" up. <BR>> > <BR>> > Mike G. <BR>>
> N728KF <BR>> > Phoenix, AZ[/quote] <BR>> > <BR>> > Wow
what a statement, you are the type of person I stay away from. <BR>> >
<BR>> > It's people like you that give the FAA the power they have and <BR>>
> harm aviation. <BR>> > <BR>> > -------- <BR>> >
kitfoxmike <BR>> > model IV, 1200 <BR>> > speedster <BR>> >
912ul <BR>> > building <BR>> > RV7a <BR>> > slowbuild wings,
fuse, finish kit <BR>> > "if you're not getting razzed from pilots or
the FAA then <BR>> > you're not flying enough" <BR>> > Do not archive
<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>>
; >
ur gen
<!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: This feud isn't pretty! |
I don't know what others think, but in the 46 years that I have been flying, I've
had the bejesus scared out of me more time that I like to remember by folks
not following the rules, and I don't like it when scofflaws attempt to kill me
and my passengers.
Just a few examples:
1. On an instrument approach at night in actual instrument conditions with visibility
about 1 1/2 miles and a ceiling of about 750 feet over Puget Sound Washington,
I broke out of the clouds, flipped on the landing light and directly in
front of me and at the base of the clouds was a Cessna 206 scud running. If
I had not been flying a helicopter that night with a lot more maneuverability
than any airplane that I've ever flown, I don't believe I'd be here to relate
that episode.
2. On an instrument approach into Newport, Oregon I was darn near hit head on by
a single engine airplane departing that airport through the cloud deck without
him being on a flight plan, or talking to Seattle Center, nor did he announce
on CTAF that he was departing. Fortunately, in this instance I was still above
the cloud deck, which was only about 500 feet thick with a ceiling of around
300-400 ft. below. I later learned the guy did not even have pilot valid
certificate. He had let his student pilot certificate and medical expire and
had a couple years before and never completed his training.
3. In Alaska, I was departing a gravel runway with a ceiling of about 1200 ft
when a Super Cub broke out of the overcast lined up on final, and landed in front
of me going in the opposite direction. Again, I was fortunate that it was
a 4000' strip and had just applied full throttle. There was enough room to stop
before we collided. Again, a guy with about 400 hours recorded in his logbook,
an expired student certificate, and had not flown with an instructor in
several years. Oh yeah, and this guy was hauling a cash paying client back in
from a guided moose hunting trip.
4. I was not involved in this incident, but it demonstrates what some people think
about the rules. In the mid 80's, near Salem, Oregon a (think I remember
it being a Cessna 206), fell out of the sky minus both wings during an intense
Pacific storm. He was flying, according to the radar records, along the western
slope of the Cascades. I'm not sure which direction he was heading, but
as I recall it was northbound. He was from the east coast somewhere. He had
a private pilot certificate, with SEL privileges only, no instrument rating.
Seems he was a person of some financial means and had installed a LORAN receiver
coupled to a 3 axis autopilot in his aircraft. His friends and family indicated
that he had flown nearly all the way across the US on that autopilot without
talking to ATC, often in the clouds, and had bragged to them about it. This
day, he had obtained a weather briefing somewhere in southern California,
had been advised that the intense storm was approaching the Pacific Northwest,
severe turbulence associated with the upslope winds, severe icing in and below
the clouds in the area of his destination. He took off and was tracked by radar
for nearly 700 miles, squawking VFR on the transponder, and indicating altitudes
above 14,000 for the last 200-300 miles before he disappeared from radar.
In the area where he crashed, there is an airway that is used for letdown
from for the jet traffic inbound for Salem, Eugene, and the Portland Oregon areas
that has a juts passing through that area at around 12,000 '. What would
you think of a guy willfully flying as he was that happened to collide with a
large passenger aircraft, especially if your family was aboard that passenger
aircraft? By the way, there were 3 people aboard the aircraft that crashed.
John Hart
Model IV
Latimer County, OK
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of josandt@verizon.net
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: This feud isn't pretty!
Thanks Mike. You hit it right on the head. It's no surprise that pilots are the
most anal retentive people on the face of the planet. That's why they make good
pilots - they obsess with everything all the time. On the positive side, it
helps keep them safe and improves commercial aviation. On the negative side,
they pull their hair out when they imagine anyone not following ALL OF THE RULES
(and they tattle)!!!! The FAA (authority)is GOD. As children, they tattled
on each other to their teachers. People don't change much, do they? They just
get older. But look at our culture! Endless, mindless PC sheep who can't think
for themselves! Independent thought is becoming a very rare commodity!! Break
out the Charmin! Kitfox Flyers ought to be a better breed. KICK ME NOW.
John Sandt, Ridgecrest Kitfox 7 constructor/independent thinker
<<<<<<<<Thank you Jim, I agree whole heartedly. But don't put that to just email.
I find that pilots sit on the ground and WATCH for people to break a rule
just to turn them into the FAA. Kitfoxmike>>>>>
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: | Videos of Kitfox 5 Lycoming o-235 |
Hey guys,
I also have been playing around with a video camera as I fly. Installed
a mount in the baggage bay and have been taking some flights with it.
Some turn out better then others depending on the sun and time of day or
the mounting location----I will keep experimenting.
Anyway.......starting to post a few on youtube----go check out my
Lcoming powered 5 that I built!
(there are 3 videos in there so far)
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kitfox+5
I hope the link works!
Brad
Wichita
5 lyc o235 l2c
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: cabin heater muff style |
Gotcha, Don...sounds like you've done your homework. :)
Now about that firewall blanket. I talked with Skystar about the
placement...major portion on the engine side or major portion on the
cabin side, and they told me that most builders were putting the
major portion on the inside, because of concerns about getting oil
soaking. I actually ripped the stitches off the 1/2 side and tossed
it, using the full blanket on the cabin side.
How are others dealing with the blanket, if at all?
Lynn Matteson
Grass Lake, Michigan
Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
flying w/450+ hrs
On Jan 4, 2008, at 10:21 PM, Don G wrote:
>
> And Lynn, yes, I understand and agree, in fact, in addition to the
> wrap on the rear pipes that come so close to the firewall blanket,
> I installed small alum sheilds against the firewall over the
> blanket because with the wrap on, it just about touchs the blanket
> right on the bend. The heat had already cooked 2 black spots on the
> blanket in that 1st 70 hours.
>
> And when I read Tonys book, I also considered that the EGT temps
> could get a bunch higher on the Mustang which probably had a 320 or
> a 360 in it, than on a 912, particularly when you have mixture
> control in the cockpit. Plus, he specified they were mild steel
> headers, not stainless like mine. These considerations gave me a
> little more confidence it the application.
> As for the wraps on certified birds, they are pretty popular in
> alot of areas, especially the further south you get. I also believe
> they are required on a Aztec, and come standard on some models of
> Bonanza's.
> When I was in College, at Spartan in Tulsa, we had wraps on most
> all of the 150's on the flight line. Of Course back in the heyday
> of Aviation..the early 70s, Those birds didnt cool off all day
> long, every day, as their flight training program was very very busy.
>
> --------
> Don G.
> Central Illinois
> Kitfox IV Speedster
> Luscombe 8A
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: Rule breakers Was: Re: This feud isn't pretty! |
John,
I can understand your concern. But now lets look at it another way. I went into
a small airport and nobody was around I mean nobody, early in the morning.
I decided to do touch and go's on all the runways, shouldn't be a problem, I
added in short approaches to get in 5 touches on each runway, total of 4 with
opposite direction put in there. 5 days later I get a letter from the airport
manager stating that there were multiple complaints about me doing erratic flying
at their airport and if it continues they will turn me into the FSDO. I
did nothing wrong, but somebody on the ground didn't like my flying and got with
his friends and they complained to the airport manager.
That brings up another thing, if a person is upset with you, that person goes to
his friends and congers up a rule that you broke and the bunch of them turn
you in, it can be from drinking before flying to just about anything they can
think of, does this happen, yes it does.
I think we just need to keep away from the FAA and let them do their job.
If you have a problem with a pilot, go talk to him. Best of all stay out of his
flying.
One last thing, most of those people that turn people in, their hangers are right
on the approach end of the runway. They literally sit in a chair and watch
people all day long.
--------
kitfoxmike
model IV, 1200
speedster
912ul
building
RV7a
slowbuild wings, fuse, finish kit
"if you're not getting razzed from pilots or the FAA then you're not flying
enough"
Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156129#156129
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: Rule breakers Was: Re: This feud isn't pretty! |
KFM-
Sounds like you're living up to your motto: if you're not getting
razzed from pilots or the FAA then you're not flying enough : )
Lynn Matteson
Grass Lake, Michigan
Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
flying w/450+ hrs
do not archive
On Jan 5, 2008, at 10:13 AM, kitfoxmike wrote:
> <customtrans@qwest.net>
>
> John,
> I can understand your concern. But now lets look at it another
> way. I went into a small airport and nobody was around I mean
> nobody, early in the morning. I decided to do touch and go's on
> all the runways, shouldn't be a problem, I added in short
> approaches to get in 5 touches on each runway, total of 4 with
> opposite direction put in there. 5 days later I get a letter from
> the airport manager stating that there were multiple complaints
> about me doing erratic flying at their airport and if it continues
> they will turn me into the FSDO. I did nothing wrong, but somebody
> on the ground didn't like my flying and got with his friends and
> they complained to the airport manager.
>
> That brings up another thing, if a person is upset with you, that
> person goes to his friends and congers up a rule that you broke and
> the bunch of them turn you in, it can be from drinking before
> flying to just about anything they can think of, does this happen,
> yes it does.
>
> I think we just need to keep away from the FAA and let them do
> their job.
>
> If you have a problem with a pilot, go talk to him. Best of all
> stay out of his flying.
>
> One last thing, most of those people that turn people in, their
> hangers are right on the approach end of the runway. They
> literally sit in a chair and watch people all day long.
>
> --------
> kitfoxmike
> model IV, 1200
> speedster
> 912ul
> building
> RV7a
> slowbuild wings, fuse, finish kit
> "if you're not getting razzed from pilots or the FAA then
> you're not flying enough"
> Do not archive
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156129#156129
>
>
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: | (OFF TOPIC) Freedom |
On Jan 5, 2008, at 2:07 PM, Keith C. wrote:
> I believe we are still the Greatest Nation of all time and that is
> what we love, that word "Freedom".
That's right. In Europe, that word "freedom" doesn't even exist.
Rousseau, Voltaire and Pascal ... who were they, anyway?
Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
> Most countries don't even allow GA. In America we can fly almost
> anything almost anywhere almost anytime.
You can fly GA or ultralight 1,000 ft above the Norwegian parliament
and the King's residence in the uncontrolled zone over Oslo. You don't
even need 2-ways radio communication ... How's that over Washington?
... sorry, guys, but you asked for it.
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
do not archive
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: FAA Avoidance |
Guy,
You have good questions there, but like anything there are abuses. Most pilots
turn in other pilots for self reasons. Greed, jealousy, wanting to get back
at someone. I still stick with the fact that pilots need to stay away from the
FAA, let them find them out on their own.
If somebody was doing that crazy of stuff, believe me the general public will be
all over them.
Now if everybody wants to keep up with the current and turn pilots in left and
right. Yes there is a problem, I talked with the people over at AOPA and they
say that the rural airports have a real big problem with pilots turning in other
pilots for stupid stuff, stuff that isn't even rule braking stuff, and it's
happening all over the US. Then it will make it so the air is less congested.
What? Yup, instead of people saying, I'm sure glad I'm on the ground instead
of in the air, when the weather is crud. They will be saying it just so they
don't have to worry about some creep turning them in.
--------
kitfoxmike
model IV, 1200
speedster
912ul
building
RV7a
slowbuild wings, fuse, finish kit
"if you're not getting razzed from pilots or the FAA then you're not flying
enough"
Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156135#156135
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: Videos of Kitfox 5 Lycoming o-235 |
Brad, watching from that perspective is like flying in the backseat of a Cub.
I enjoyed the rides1
--------
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=156138#156138
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: | Videos of Kitfox 5 Lycoming o-235 |
Thanks for sharing the videos Brad. I sure do love that sound! The
only thing better on my ears is a round engine.
Tell us more about your engine setup. Is the O235 stock or did you make
mods to reduce the weight and/or performance? What is the empty weight
of the airplane? Using 70f and near sea level, how does it perform,
ie., climb, cruise, stall, etc? How many hours do you have on it so
far? What prop are you using and is it giving you want you want? Any
other useful info would be appreciated.
We've had a few O235 Kitfoxes here in the past and as I recall, there
were satisfied owners and have been no issues that I recall. We don't
hear much about anything other than Rotax so it's nice to see
alternatives.
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
"Nothing will ever be attempted, if all possible objections must first
be overcome".- Samuel Johnson
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 9:56 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Videos of Kitfox 5 Lycoming o-235
Hey guys,
I also have been playing around with a video camera as I fly.
Installed a mount in the baggage bay and have been taking some flights
with it.
Some turn out better then others depending on the sun and time of day
or the mounting location----I will keep experimenting.
Anyway.......starting to post a few on youtube----go check out my
Lcoming powered 5 that I built!
(there are 3 videos in there so far)
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kitfox+5
I hope the link works!
Brad
Wichita
5 lyc o235 l2c
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: cabin heater muff style |
Lynn,
I did what you have explained. I have no blanket on the engine side and the
side in the cockpit still looks good after 10 years.
John oakley
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: cabin heater muff style
Gotcha, Don...sounds like you've done your homework. :)
Now about that firewall blanket. I talked with Skystar about the
placement...major portion on the engine side or major portion on the
cabin side, and they told me that most builders were putting the
major portion on the inside, because of concerns about getting oil
soaking. I actually ripped the stitches off the 1/2 side and tossed
it, using the full blanket on the cabin side.
How are others dealing with the blanket, if at all?
Lynn Matteson
Grass Lake, Michigan
Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
flying w/450+ hrs
On Jan 4, 2008, at 10:21 PM, Don G wrote:
>
> And Lynn, yes, I understand and agree, in fact, in addition to the
> wrap on the rear pipes that come so close to the firewall blanket,
> I installed small alum sheilds against the firewall over the
> blanket because with the wrap on, it just about touchs the blanket
> right on the bend. The heat had already cooked 2 black spots on the
> blanket in that 1st 70 hours.
>
> And when I read Tonys book, I also considered that the EGT temps
> could get a bunch higher on the Mustang which probably had a 320 or
> a 360 in it, than on a 912, particularly when you have mixture
> control in the cockpit. Plus, he specified they were mild steel
> headers, not stainless like mine. These considerations gave me a
> little more confidence it the application.
> As for the wraps on certified birds, they are pretty popular in
> alot of areas, especially the further south you get. I also believe
> they are required on a Aztec, and come standard on some models of
> Bonanza's.
> When I was in College, at Spartan in Tulsa, we had wraps on most
> all of the 150's on the flight line. Of Course back in the heyday
> of Aviation..the early 70s, Those birds didnt cool off all day
> long, every day, as their flight training program was very very busy.
>
> --------
> Don G.
> Central Illinois
> Kitfox IV Speedster
> Luscombe 8A
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: cabin heater muff style |
Lynn,
REALLY?....this sounds very interesting...and more logical in fact.
Explain to me what you mean about the 1/2 side?
And major portion?...I am confused with these terms.
I am also sure I would like the whole dang think inside the cabin.
I think this is the first aircraft I have seen with a blanket on the firewall on
the engine side. I thought it looked outta place!
--------
Don G.
Central Illinois
Kitfox IV Speedster
Luscombe 8A
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156145#156145
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: (OFF TOPIC) Freedom |
But you know Michel the reason we left was heritary Kings and high taxes.
:-) Not withstanding the fact you have the best standard of living in the
world. :-(
Michel I am always glad to see your post, they are intellectual and
informative. It would be a pleasure to sit across a table from you.
Keith C.
Kitfox Wannabe
C-150 N8798G
Sacramento, CA (MHR)
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 7:34 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: (OFF TOPIC) Freedom
>
> On Jan 5, 2008, at 2:07 PM, Keith C. wrote:
>> I believe we are still the Greatest Nation of all time and that is what
>> we love, that word "Freedom".
>
> That's right. In Europe, that word "freedom" doesn't even exist. Rousseau,
> Voltaire and Pascal ... who were they, anyway?
>
>> Most countries don't even allow GA. In America we can fly almost
>> anything almost anywhere almost anytime.
>
> You can fly GA or ultralight 1,000 ft above the Norwegian parliament and
> the King's residence in the uncontrolled zone over Oslo. You don't even
> need 2-ways radio communication ... How's that over Washington?
>
> ... sorry, guys, but you asked for it.
>
> 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: (OFF TOPIC) Freedom |
Michel,
Forgot my spellcheck, that was "hereditary" Kings. I should go offlist for
this.
Keith C.
Kitfox Wannabe
C-150 N8798G
Sacramento, CA (MHR)
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 7:34 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: (OFF TOPIC) Freedom
>
> On Jan 5, 2008, at 2:07 PM, Keith C. wrote:
>> I believe we are still the Greatest Nation of all time and that is what
>> we love, that word "Freedom".
>
> That's right. In Europe, that word "freedom" doesn't even exist. Rousseau,
> Voltaire and Pascal ... who were they, anyway?
>
>> Most countries don't even allow GA. In America we can fly almost
>> anything almost anywhere almost anytime.
>
> You can fly GA or ultralight 1,000 ft above the Norwegian parliament and
> the King's residence in the uncontrolled zone over Oslo. You don't even
> need 2-ways radio communication ... How's that over Washington?
>
> ... sorry, guys, but you asked for it.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel Verheughe
> Norway
> Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
> do not archive
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rule breakers Was: Re: This feud isn't pretty! |
kitfoxmike sez:
>5 days later I get a letter from the airport manager stating that
>there were multiple complaints about me doing erratic flying at
>their airport and if it continues they will turn me into the FSDO.
>I did nothing wrong...
"Perception is everything," as they say. Unfortunately, as aviation
enthusiasts we are involved in a constant PR struggle. The general
public perceives us as noisy, dangerous, and unnecessary. The
reality is that we are very tiny minority of the population and if we
ignore these concerns we will ultimately get regulated away due to
public pressure on government officials.
Mike G.
N728KF
Phoenix, AZ
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: Rule breakers Was: Re: This feud isn't pretty! |
At 07:13 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote:
>5 days later I get a letter from the airport manager stating that
>there were multiple complaints about me doing erratic flying at
>their airport and if it continues they will turn me into the
>FSDO. I did nothing wrong, but somebody on the ground didn't like
>my flying and got with his friends and they complained to the airport manager.
Mike,
Thank you, you have made my point. Whatever you were doing
scared the groundlings enough to complain. Yes, there are the
occasional nut-cases sitting at the ends of runways, but they are
usually notorious and are ignored by airport managers and the local
FAA. Yet you said you were doing something new and that there were
multiple complaints. And interestingly enough these complaints were
sufficient to make the airport manager threaten you, either because
of their nature, or because the status of who made them. As a result
you have jeopardized that airport's future, and put yet another nail
in the coffin of general aviation. What happened? Let's address the
possibilities:
1. You were doing something illegal and unsafe. Is any discussion necessary?
2. You were doing something legal and unsafe. Discussion?
3. You were doing something illegal and safe. The rules we fly by are
designed, in large part, to keep everyone safe. You and I both know
it is possible to fly outside the rules and be perfectly safe. What's
the point? Some of the rules are designed to give the groundlings a
perception of safety, to keep us out of the public eye. You and I
both know we can fly within 50' of anything and anybody in perfect
safety, yet it scares the crap out of the un-informed when we do it.
Thus the rule that says stay 500' away from anything that might
contain a human. (My paraphrase.) There are others. (Do we really
need 1000' AGL pattern altitudes? What's wrong with flying under
bridges? Why can't we land on public property in CA where there are
huge dry lake beds? Why can't we land on roads?)
4. You were doing something legal and safe. If this is the case you
should seriously consider a small educational effort wherein you get
together with the complainants and explain what you were doing and
why, why it was legal, and more importantly, why it was safe. (Maybe
the airport manager should attend, too.) You will then have removed
your's and maybe a few other's nails from the GA coffin. Yes I know
it's an effort, but after all, it's your nail.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: cabin heater muff style |
At 07:05 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote:
>How are others dealing with the blanket, if at all?
Mine has no noise attenuation, just the stainless bulkhead,
and I don't mind at all. I do have good noise cancelling headphones,
though. My firewall's constantly a mess from leaky injection banjos
and weeping seals so I'm very glad I don't have anything permeable on
the outside of it.
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: (OFF TOPIC) Freedom |
At 08:50 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote:
>Michel,
>Forgot my spellcheck, that was "hereditary" Kings. I should go
>offlist for this.
Thank you Keith. You're right, you should.
Guy Buchanan, Kitfox List Moderator
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: FAA Avoidance |
At 07:37 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote:
>Yes there is a problem, I talked with the people over at AOPA and
>they say that the rural airports have a real big problem with pilots
>turning in other pilots for stupid stuff, stuff that isn't even rule
>braking stuff, and it's happening all over the US.
Mike,
I'm sorry, but would you please explain how one gets turned
in for non-rule breaking stuff, and what happens to you when you get
caught? (I know you have something in mind, I just can't picture it.)
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: cabin heater muff style |
Does your blanket extend below the ...never mind, I just looked at
you pictures and see that it does extend all the way down to the
bottom of the firewall inside the engine compartment. It sounds like
you got your plane with the blanket already installed if not entirely
finished. Is there any of the firewall blanket showing inside the
cabin, that is, on the back side of the firewall? If it does, that is
what I'm calling the 1/2 side, as it is only half as long as the side
that has the rudder pedal bumps.
I'm not sure what the proper terms are, but just for the sake of
discussion, let's call the side that contains the bumps (my term) for
the rudder pedals, the full side, or the long side. The other side is
the short side (what I called the 1/2 side), and only comes halfway
down the firewall. These two sides are sewn together, forming a
pocket that slides down over the firewall. It can be installed with
either the short side, or the long side facing the engine. I was
nervous about having either side facing the engine where it is
subject to heat, oil or gas contamination, or whatever. When I called
the old Skystar Co., they told me that some builders would cut the
short side off, and install the blanket entirely within the cabin,
that is, on the back side of the firewall. You just have to push the
rudder bumps inside-out, so to speak, and it fits perfectly. When I
did my plane, I cut holes where the engine mount contacts the
firewall and thence the airframe. I didn't want to have anything,
much less fabric, between the engine mount and the airframe, except
the firewall. If the blanket is between these items, eventually the
fabric will compress, and leave you with loose engine mounting bolts.
Hope I've explained it ok.
Lynn Matteson
Grass Lake, Michigan
Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
flying w/450+ hrs
On Jan 5, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Don G wrote:
>
> Lynn,
> REALLY?....this sounds very interesting...and more logical in fact.
> Explain to me what you mean about the 1/2 side?
> And major portion?...I am confused with these terms.
> I am also sure I would like the whole dang think inside the cabin.
> I think this is the first aircraft I have seen with a blanket on
> the firewall on the engine side. I thought it looked outta place!
>
> --------
> Don G.
> Central Illinois
> Kitfox IV Speedster
> Luscombe 8A
>
> http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156145#156145
>
>
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: | Kitfox List Protocol |
OK guys, we're spinning big time. Time for a dose of rudder:
1. This is an email list, not a chat room. Before you send, please
ask yourself whether your message is substantive, is Kitfox related,
and is something EVERYONE needs to hear. Merely responding to a
Kitfox related post doesn't necessarily qualify. Yes I want everyone
to be on cordial, even friendly terms. Yes I want everyone to send
those friendly, irrelevant, chatty messages; I just want them sent
OFF-LINE. If it's not something everyone else needs to hear, send it
direct. If you want your buddies to be part of the conversation, copy them.
2. Please refrain from personal attacks, including obscurities. (No
that's not a typo.) If you feel you've been attacked you have three
options: 1) Take your revenge off-line; 2) Ignore it; and/or 3)
Contact a moderator. There has been at least one recent personal
reference that was obscure enough to get by me that resulted in a
public rebuttal. That's not what I want. In the future I'll suspend
the membership of anyone I think is being rude or inconsiderate or
who responds in a like manner.
3. Please put your full name, location, and plane in your signature.
I find that posters are a lot more cordial when they use names. (I
understand that some of you have security issues. If so, please make
something up. If we already know your name, please use it. If you
don't know how to use signatures, contact Mike or I OFF-LINE. We can help you.)
4. Offenders will be prosecuted, (even persecuted,) to the full
extent of the moderator's whims. Appeals are welcome and can be made
to the moderators, or if a higher authority is desired, directly to
Matt Dralle at dralle@matronics.com.
For those of you who insist on debating these guidelines, (or if you
have some constructive criticism,) please email Mike or I OFF-LINE.
Thank you,
Guy Buchanan, Kitfox List Moderator
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: | Kitfox List Protocol |
hey Guy take me off the list will you
Thanks Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Guy Buchanan
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 12:25 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox List Protocol
OK guys, we're spinning big time. Time for a dose of rudder:
1. This is an email list, not a chat room. Before you send, please
ask yourself whether your message is substantive, is Kitfox related,
and is something EVERYONE needs to hear. Merely responding to a
Kitfox related post doesn't necessarily qualify. Yes I want everyone
to be on cordial, even friendly terms. Yes I want everyone to send
those friendly, irrelevant, chatty messages; I just want them sent
OFF-LINE. If it's not something everyone else needs to hear, send it
direct. If you want your buddies to be part of the conversation, copy them.
2. Please refrain from personal attacks, including obscurities. (No
that's not a typo.) If you feel you've been attacked you have three
options: 1) Take your revenge off-line; 2) Ignore it; and/or 3)
Contact a moderator. There has been at least one recent personal
reference that was obscure enough to get by me that resulted in a
public rebuttal. That's not what I want. In the future I'll suspend
the membership of anyone I think is being rude or inconsiderate or
who responds in a like manner.
3. Please put your full name, location, and plane in your signature.
I find that posters are a lot more cordial when they use names. (I
understand that some of you have security issues. If so, please make
something up. If we already know your name, please use it. If you
don't know how to use signatures, contact Mike or I OFF-LINE. We can help
you.)
4. Offenders will be prosecuted, (even persecuted,) to the full
extent of the moderator's whims. Appeals are welcome and can be made
to the moderators, or if a higher authority is desired, directly to
Matt Dralle at dralle@matronics.com.
For those of you who insist on debating these guidelines, (or if you
have some constructive criticism,) please email Mike or I OFF-LINE.
Thank you,
Guy Buchanan, Kitfox List Moderator
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: (OFF TOPIC) Freedom |
Keith, I think you might spend a little time finding out why the pilgrims
left Europe. The heridary rule of kings had largely ended by 1300 and power
rested largely with parliament. The pilgrims left to escape the wrath of the
Church of England shortly after 1600. It was the first notion of the idea of
a separation of church and state although I'm unsure they thought of it that
way. They had certainly had enough of the the "church state" and might well
have stayed if parliament or the King had the power to stay the church's
hand.
I know you are force fed the notion that "freedom" is the sole purview of
America but the fact is that most nations have at least as much personal
freedom, and many have more. When you spew forth the retoric of "land of
the free" you might be insulting a lot of people you know little about.
Dave Goddard- Mod IV 1050/582
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith C." <kcflys@pacbell.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: (OFF TOPIC) Freedom
>
> But you know Michel the reason we left was heritary Kings and high taxes.
> :-) Not withstanding the fact you have the best standard of living in the
> world. :-(
>
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: | Kitfox List Protocol |
At 11:42 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote:
>hey Guy take me off the list will you
>Thanks Steve
Sure. Any particular reason? Just wondering.
Guy
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: (OFF TOPIC) Freedom |
At 12:00 PM 1/5/2008, you wrote:
>I know you are force fed the notion that "freedom" is the sole
>purview of America but the fact is that most nations have at least
>as much personal freedom, and many have more. When you spew forth
>the retoric of "land of the free" you might be insulting a lot of
>people you know little about.
Please continue this thread off-list. As much as I love freedom,
discussion of its merits and origin are definitely outside the scope
of the Kitfox list.
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan, Kitfox List Moderator
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: Kitfox List Protocol |
Guy,
It would seem to me that this reply should also fall under the rules of the
protocol and be sent off-list!!
Keith C.
Kitfox Wannabe
C-150 N8798G
Sacramento, CA (MHR)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Buchanan" <bnn@nethere.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 12:05 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Kitfox List Protocol
>
> At 11:42 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote:
>>hey Guy take me off the list will you
>>Thanks Steve
>
> Sure. Any particular reason? Just wondering.
>
> Guy
>
>
>
Message 28
| 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: Rule breakers Was: Re: This feud isn't pretty! |
Mike,
My intent in responding to this is not to stir up controversy, nor to point
the finger at anyone. I'm only posting the following to let folks get a
look at some of the things that are overlooked, or forgotten from our
initial and recurrent training. My purpose here is simply to point out that
what many of us expect in a traffic pattern as pilots is not the way a lot
of folks fly.
You posted that you that you did nothing wrong in your response below. I
invite your attention to Section 4-3-3, and Section 4-3-4, in the
Aeronautical Information Manual, Airport Operations, the Official Guide to
Basic Flight Information and ATC Procedures for all pilots in the USA. What
you described below is not what other pilots that are familiar with
procedures would expect on an airport open to the public. You apparently
did not cause a concern for another aircraft in that instance, however, if
you look at those sections I mentioned, you will see that you did not follow
recommended procedures. The Aeronautical information Manual can be found at:
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/
I have seen the FAA issue a citation for simply making a long (10 mile or
so) straight-in approach to an uncontrolled airport, citing careless and
reckless operation as the offence in that he failed to follow recommended
procedures. They got a conviction for the offence by a Federal Magistrate.
The FAA inspectors were on the airport at the time the guy made that long
approach.
As I said, I'm not attempting to point fingers or otherwise find fault with
what happened, just to point out that we all forget things and that we need
to keep on our toes when we share the airspace with others.
John Hart
Model IV
Latimer County, OK
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kitfoxmike
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 9:13 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Rule breakers Was: Re: This feud isn't pretty!
John,
I can understand your concern. But now lets look at it another way. I went
into a small airport and nobody was around I mean nobody, early in the
morning. I decided to do touch and go's on all the runways, shouldn't be a
problem, I added in short approaches to get in 5 touches on each runway,
total of 4 with opposite direction put in there. 5 days later I get a
letter from the airport manager stating that there were multiple complaints
about me doing erratic flying at their airport and if it continues they will
turn me into the FSDO. I did nothing wrong, but somebody on the ground
didn't like my flying and got with his friends and they complained to the
airport manager.
That brings up another thing, if a person is upset with you, that person
goes to his friends and congers up a rule that you broke and the bunch of
them turn you in, it can be from drinking before flying to just about
anything they can think of, does this happen, yes it does.
I think we just need to keep away from the FAA and let them do their job.
If you have a problem with a pilot, go talk to him. Best of all stay out
of his flying.
One last thing, most of those people that turn people in, their hangers are
right on the approach end of the runway. They literally sit in a chair and
watch people all day long.
--------
kitfoxmike
model IV, 1200
speedster
912ul
building
RV7a
slowbuild wings, fuse, finish kit
"if you're not getting razzed from pilots or the FAA then you're not
flying enough"
Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156129#156129
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Kitfox List Protocol |
At 11:42 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote:
>hey Guy take me off the list will you
>Thanks Steve
Steve,
I pulled your account, but had to do it as a user. As such
you will be receiving an email with a link to confirm your
subscription modification. Please execute the link and you will be removed.
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan, Kitfox List Moderator
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Message 30
| 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 |
|
Once again I apologize. The last two messages to Steve Eccles were
obviously supposed to be off-list.
Guy Buchanan, Kitfox List Moderator
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Message 31
| 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: Videos of Kitfox 5 Lycoming o-235 |
Good Video Brad
Dee
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad<mailto:fly2wb@dishmail.net>
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com<mailto:kitfox-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 7:56 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Videos of Kitfox 5 Lycoming o-235
Hey guys,
I also have been playing around with a video camera as I fly.
Installed a mount in the baggage bay and have been taking some flights
with it.
Some turn out better then others depending on the sun and time of day
or the mounting location----I will keep experimenting.
Anyway.......starting to post a few on youtube----go check out my
Lcoming powered 5 that I built!
(there are 3 videos in there so far)
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kitfox+5<http://www.youtube
com/results?search_query=kitfox+5>
I hope the link works!
Brad
Wichita
5 lyc o235 l2c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List<http://www.matronics.com/N
avigator?Kitfox-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
Message 32
| 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: Videos of Kitfox 5 Lycoming o-235 |
Thanks guys!
Like a lot of you I have been on this list a long time....but primarily
as a lurker. I remember first joining in Feb. 2000 and was floored to be
able to get help whenever I wanted. Seems like we forget about that
sometimes. It's probably just me.....but I liked the list even better
when Deke and Don were running it as just a simple e-mail forum with
very few harsh words from anyone...only friendly banter. Times change.
The talk of builders back and forth with their completed airplanes made
me strive harder to complete mine....even when life and the odds seemed
to great.
Mine was started in June 1999 and first flew September 2005. About 1600
hours build time. Engine is a Lycoming 0-235L2C and was chosen partly
because any airport in the U.S. is familiar with it and I do not like
tinkering with aircraft engines much. Just me....I know that some of you
are good at it. Found my engine in Arkansaw by another builder on this
list...thanks JC...who actually has a lycoming 290 in his. As some of
you other "heavy builders" like Bruce Lina know, these engines are
really not to heavy for this aircraft. True, you won't get off the
ground like kitfox Mike does......or land quite that slow....but it gets
off better than spans do. My engine has a 2400 hour TBO (if all parts
are lycoming) and a 2000 if not. Lycoming is stock except for the oil
filter I added instead of the screen and the oil cooler that the factory
supplied with the firewall forward kit. John Mcbean was a big help for
me when giving advice on the engine prop combo and statis of the old
company while I was building. I still try and remember to thank him
every year at Osh when I see him and am so thankfull that he has the
company now. You guys that are building or buying from John should take
great comfort in knowing that he will do anything he can to help you get
your aircraft flying.
Empty weight is 921 with a gross of 1500 with the 1 degree forward wing
sweep. My CG is fine by myself with hardly any fuel as I have a 25# tool
bag in the back of the baggage bay. Leo Rice tought me that. You can
load her up with full fuel, heavy rider, or as much baggage as you want
as long as it is not over 1550. Full fuel at 160#, me at 200#, buddy at
200#, still leaves me with about 70# in the baggage. Don't need any more
than that. Prop is wood Sensenich W74-EM-2-54 which is climb/cruise
combo.
Still a work in progress so I have yet to put lift strut fairings on
yet----have the old plastic ones but am holding out for something
lighter----no stripes yet but will put some on someday---- so cruise
right now is about 105mph at 2500. The Lycoming high compression engine
says that I can run it all day at 2800 which gives more speed but just
do not want to do that at this time. Wing strut fairings should add
about 15mph which should give me my goal of about 120-125 cruise. Wheel
fairings? Maybe, maybe not. Stall is about 50 at gross....around 40 with
just me and half tanks... 1 notch flaps. Takeoff can be had in about
400 ft (like Bruce) and maybe a little less but I have gotten off
quicker than anything I am used to. I always climb out at 70 and have
seen 1200 fpm climbs but not the norm. Final I always try for 70 until
runway made but could go slower.
Did have a little problem with big tires...I think they were
800s....squirrelly....but switched to 600s and added taper shims....1
degree....handles like a dream for me now. Do not know if it was the
switch or just me.
Francisco, my opinion only, I would think the Ly o-200 would also be a
good fit for this aircraft....unless you just really need the short
ground performance of a lighter airplane. Also, engine is one that is
well known for it's longevity.
My homefield has a grass strip thats 1600 ft....big tree at the north
end of 19. Have had no problems using this strip with my airplane.
More videos on the way......
Brad
Wichita
Kitfox 5 Lycoming o-235l2c
----- Original Message -----
From: fox5flyer
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 9:43 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Videos of Kitfox 5 Lycoming o-235
Thanks for sharing the videos Brad. I sure do love that sound! The
only thing better on my ears is a round engine.
Tell us more about your engine setup. Is the O235 stock or did you
make mods to reduce the weight and/or performance? What is the empty
weight of the airplane? Using 70f and near sea level, how does it
perform, ie., climb, cruise, stall, etc? How many hours do you have on
it so far? What prop are you using and is it giving you want you want?
Any other useful info would be appreciated.
We've had a few O235 Kitfoxes here in the past and as I recall, there
were satisfied owners and have been no issues that I recall. We don't
hear much about anything other than Rotax so it's nice to see
alternatives.
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
"Nothing will ever be attempted, if all possible objections must first
be overcome".- Samuel Johnson
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 9:56 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Videos of Kitfox 5 Lycoming o-235
Hey guys,
I also have been playing around with a video camera as I fly.
Installed a mount in the baggage bay and have been taking some flights
with it.
Some turn out better then others depending on the sun and time of
day or the mounting location----I will keep experimenting.
Anyway.......starting to post a few on youtube----go check out my
Lcoming powered 5 that I built!
(there are 3 videos in there so far)
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kitfox+5
I hope the link works!
Brad
Wichita
5 lyc o235 l2c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
Message 33
| 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: Videos of Kitfox 5 Lycoming o-235 |
Thanks for the info Brad. It's good to hear of another success story.
Have you considered any of the inflight adjustable props to maximize
your takeoff/climb/cruise? A lot of folks are using the IVO Magnum on
the big bores. Drag reduction can really add up and increases the
airspeed dramatically. Extra speed at the same rpm equals economy and
at today's fuel prices, it really ads up.
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
"Nothing will ever be attempted, if all possible objections must first
be overcome".- Samuel Johnson
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Videos of Kitfox 5 Lycoming o-235
Thanks guys!
Like a lot of you I have been on this list a long time....but
primarily as a lurker. I remember first joining in Feb. 2000 and was
floored to be able to get help whenever I wanted. Seems like we forget
about that sometimes. It's probably just me.....but I liked the list
even better when Deke and Don were running it as just a simple e-mail
forum with very few harsh words from anyone...only friendly banter.
Times change. The talk of builders back and forth with their completed
airplanes made me strive harder to complete mine....even when life and
the odds seemed to great.
Mine was started in June 1999 and first flew September 2005. About
1600 hours build time. Engine is a Lycoming 0-235L2C and was chosen
partly because any airport in the U.S. is familiar with it and I do not
like tinkering with aircraft engines much. Just me....I know that some
of you are good at it. Found my engine in Arkansaw by another builder on
this list...thanks JC...who actually has a lycoming 290 in his. As some
of you other "heavy builders" like Bruce Lina know, these engines are
really not to heavy for this aircraft. True, you won't get off the
ground like kitfox Mike does......or land quite that slow....but it gets
off better than spans do. My engine has a 2400 hour TBO (if all parts
are lycoming) and a 2000 if not. Lycoming is stock except for the oil
filter I added instead of the screen and the oil cooler that the factory
supplied with the firewall forward kit. John Mcbean was a big help for
me when giving advice on the engine prop combo and statis of the old
company while I was building. I still try and remember to thank him
every year at Osh when I see him and am so thankfull that he has the
company now. You guys that are building or buying from John should take
great comfort in knowing that he will do anything he can to help you get
your aircraft flying.
Empty weight is 921 with a gross of 1500 with the 1 degree forward
wing sweep. My CG is fine by myself with hardly any fuel as I have a 25#
tool bag in the back of the baggage bay. Leo Rice tought me that. You
can load her up with full fuel, heavy rider, or as much baggage as you
want as long as it is not over 1550. Full fuel at 160#, me at 200#,
buddy at 200#, still leaves me with about 70# in the baggage. Don't need
any more than that. Prop is wood Sensenich W74-EM-2-54 which is
climb/cruise combo.
Still a work in progress so I have yet to put lift strut fairings on
yet----have the old plastic ones but am holding out for something
lighter----no stripes yet but will put some on someday---- so cruise
right now is about 105mph at 2500. The Lycoming high compression engine
says that I can run it all day at 2800 which gives more speed but just
do not want to do that at this time. Wing strut fairings should add
about 15mph which should give me my goal of about 120-125 cruise. Wheel
fairings? Maybe, maybe not. Stall is about 50 at gross....around 40 with
just me and half tanks... 1 notch flaps. Takeoff can be had in about
400 ft (like Bruce) and maybe a little less but I have gotten off
quicker than anything I am used to. I always climb out at 70 and have
seen 1200 fpm climbs but not the norm. Final I always try for 70 until
runway made but could go slower.
Did have a little problem with big tires...I think they were
800s....squirrelly....but switched to 600s and added taper shims....1
degree....handles like a dream for me now. Do not know if it was the
switch or just me.
Francisco, my opinion only, I would think the Ly o-200 would also be a
good fit for this aircraft....unless you just really need the short
ground performance of a lighter airplane. Also, engine is one that is
well known for it's longevity.
My homefield has a grass strip thats 1600 ft....big tree at the north
end of 19. Have had no problems using this strip with my airplane.
More videos on the way......
Brad
Wichita
Kitfox 5 Lycoming o-235l2c
----- Original Message -----
From: fox5flyer
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 9:43 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Videos of Kitfox 5 Lycoming o-235
Thanks for sharing the videos Brad. I sure do love that sound! The
only thing better on my ears is a round engine.
Tell us more about your engine setup. Is the O235 stock or did you
make mods to reduce the weight and/or performance? What is the empty
weight of the airplane? Using 70f and near sea level, how does it
perform, ie., climb, cruise, stall, etc? How many hours do you have on
it so far? What prop are you using and is it giving you want you want?
Any other useful info would be appreciated.
We've had a few O235 Kitfoxes here in the past and as I recall,
there were satisfied owners and have been no issues that I recall. We
don't hear much about anything other than Rotax so it's nice to see
alternatives.
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
"Nothing will ever be attempted, if all possible objections must
first be overcome".- Samuel Johnson
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 9:56 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Videos of Kitfox 5 Lycoming o-235
Hey guys,
I also have been playing around with a video camera as I fly.
Installed a mount in the baggage bay and have been taking some flights
with it.
Some turn out better then others depending on the sun and time of
day or the mounting location----I will keep experimenting.
Anyway.......starting to post a few on youtube----go check out my
Lcoming powered 5 that I built!
(there are 3 videos in there so far)
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kitfox+5
I hope the link works!
Brad
Wichita
5 lyc o235 l2c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
Message 34
| 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 |
|
well Guy there seems to be enough experts on the Kitfox here and since you
don't care for the exchange of banter on the list I'll just say goodbye for
now ,, who knows I might come back, although I really don't think anyone
will care one way or another.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Guy Buchanan
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 2:46 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Apologies Again
Once again I apologize. The last two messages to Steve Eccles were
obviously supposed to be off-list.
Guy Buchanan, Kitfox List Moderator
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Message 35
| 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 |
|
Dan, Thanks for the reply. Steve Kellander sent me info via e-mail off the
web. He told me that the plane was dismantelled and gave me some of the spe
cs. Too bad that the plane was cannabilized after all the work involved. P
at Reilly Rockford, IL
From: henrysfork1@msn.comTo: kitfox-list@matronics.comSubject: Kitfox-List:
Kitfox BiplaneDate: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:13:26 -0700
I saw the wings in a hanger in Nampa, Idaho a few years back.
Dee Young
Model II
N345DY
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Billingsley
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox Biplane
Don't know why some of the posts I send show up empty...odd
try this again
Pat, I don't know alot about that plane other than it is no more. The plane
was taken apart and no longer exists. I heard that the wings were tucked a
way in someones hanger, but I don't recall who or where. FWIW
Dan B
Do not archivePat Reilly <patreilly43@hotmail.com> wrote:
Kitfoxers, I saw on Matt's Kitfox website a mod 4 that was converted to a b
iplane by Denny. Does anybody know where I can find out more info on that p
lane and the conversion?
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronhr
ef="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox Biplane |
Pat,
I sent to your personal mail copies of an article I had scanned years ago about
the Kitfox Biplane. Neat airplane. I wish someone would build another just
so the rest of us could admire it...(smile)
Paul Seehafer
Note my new E-mail address; paul676@tds.net
--------
Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
Avid Flyer
Lake Amphibian
Central Wisconsin
paul676@tds.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156256#156256
Message 37
| 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: Short Changing Ourselves!! |
Kitfox resale value is really kind of strange when you think about it.
How many competitive airplanes can do this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=513UTHqoZBc (I don't recall ever seeing another LSA type airplane doing something so impressive or spectacular - especially only on 80 hp!)
How many of the competive airplanes (that sell for more typically) have a folding
wing feature? (oh yeah, one that REALLY works) That alone in my mind should
be a huge selling feature adding value to the Kitfox.
How many competitive airplanes will lift their own empty weight? (providing one
of the best useful loads in it's class) A Light Kitfox will lift more than it's
empty weight.
How many competitve airplanes have the option of being either a tailwheel airplane
or a tri gear?
How many of the competitive airplanes have so many proven engine options as the
Kitfox does?
How many of the competitive airplanes have a flight envelope, that is so impressive?
How many of the competitive airplanes have the classic looks with the graceful
lines the Kitfox does?
How many of the competitive airplanes have the range/fuel capacity the Kitfox has?
How many of the competitve airplanes have the ever so sweet and nimble handling
the Kitfox has?
How many of the competitive airplanes have the option of slide-in wing extension
allowing you in less than half an hour to convert your cross country cruiser
into a super stol machine?
(And I'm sure I'm missing a bunch of things....)
In spite of having hands down the most versatile (and fun) airplane out there,
I agree our Kitfoxes are hugely undervalued. But for savvy buyers, that makes
them truly "the bargain and performance sleeper" of all the Light Sport type
aircraft available.
But, I suspect we are more or less at the end of those good ol' days prices, as
I'm sure any of you that watch the used Kitfox (and Avid) markets have already
noticed, our supply for used airplanes is beginning to dry up. And since it
is all about supply and demand, that means the vaule of our planes will start
climbing.
For any of you that want to do something to improve our Kitfoxes value, just give
other pilots and enthusisasts rides in yours. That always seems to impress
even the worst skeptics. Or just show people what your airplane can do by flying
it more where others see it. Show them the stol characteristics. Fold a
wing back when theres a crowd around. Show them just how neat of an airplane
the Kitfox is. And while you are helping to reestablish the values of our planes,
you will most likely also be helping John and Debra sell new Kitfoxes, keeping
the company strong. And that's good for all of us!
Just my two cents worth on the subject...
Paul Seehafer
(Note: I have a new e-mail; paul676@tds.net)
--------
Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
Avid Flyer
Lake Amphibian
Central Wisconsin
paul676@tds.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156270#156270
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/kf_iv_slalom_course_163.jpg
Message 38
| 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: This feud isn't pretty! |
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
Message 39
| 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: This feud isn't pretty! |
Guys/Gals,
Excuse the previous blank email, somehow my computer decided it was time to
send it out. I'm innocent. I didn't even touch a key, go figure.
I did want to mention something that might be helpful to all of us. I
retired from the FAA in 1997 and I held a number of relatively high positions on
the engineering side of the Agency. I did work a lot with flight standards
folks, the regulators of aviation. I can say this about them, they all (with
very few exceptions) got into the FAA because they loved aviation. Some were
always GA and some a combination of military and GA, but all like their jobs,
be they pilots or mechanics.
The inspectors get very regimented training on the rules before they
interface with the public. They all are serious about safety and their main mission
is to protect the ' innocent public' and then the aviators. Many of them
would do anything to avoid citing a pilot or a technicality because it means a
lot of paperwork. Yes, there are some that look forward to the opportunity
to 'get someone', but the management in HQ tries to not let that happen. For
instance, at AirVenture there can be 20 or 30 inspectors walking around and
they are trained to not hassle the pilots, but to work with the person if they
see a problem. You probably have never even noticed many of them when they
are working on the ramp, unless they're wearing an FAA name tag or shirt.
Given all this, when someone brings a problem to their attention, they
cannot ignore it. They are obligated to follow through and research the
complaint. Actually, that's what we, as taxpayers, expect from our government
employees. That being said, when we want something from the FAA don't we expect
them to work hard and get an answer in a reasonable time?
The real problem we face is how to interact with the inspector. If we show
a compliant attitude (do not read this as confessing to breaking a rule - get
an attorney before you even consider doing that) and strive for a safety
related outcome, it is possible to get off with just a warning, either verbally
or written. Once you do something that causes the inspector to be concerned
and he forwards his findings to the attorneys at FAA, all bets are off.
Attorneys work in a world of rules and sanctions. Once they get the case they
will do their attorney thing. It then becomes difficult to get a compromise
without professional (your attorney) help.
If you have a problem with a fellow aviator, confront him or her directly
and try to work it out. If you are doing something 'unexpected' or just plain
wrong and someone confronts you, explain it, accept the responsibility, or if
you choose to deny it, or do whatever you think is appropriate, expect the
FAA to come ask when the person you blew off decides to call the feds. When
you do that, at least you now know the process you are about to enter.
Remember, the rules will be enforced, right or wrong (I mean whether the rule
is
right or wrong). if you don't like the rules, petition the Agency to change it.
The FAA is obligated to address that request to. However,as we always say,
the rules have been written, for the most part, in the blood of the aviators
who have gone west before us. They aren't that onerous, they are our
government's best attempt to draw the limits on what is safe. Just don't place
yourself in a position that will allow the FAA inspector to interpret the rules.
English is a tough language and different words can be interpreted in
different ways. Enter the lawyers. This is where they make their careers.
Don't give these folks the opportunity to get awards, for getting you.
I apologize for going on, but as a fellow aviator, I don't want to see our
privileges (not rights) jeopardized by some of us operating as 'cowboys' and
stirring up the public (or other aviators) who then think they have to save
the world and go to the FAA.
Fly safe!
Rick Weiss
Kitfox Series V Speedster (soon to fly - I hope)
Daytona Beach
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
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! --
|