Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:36 AM - Re: OT: Wind Turbine (Michel Verheughe)
2. 06:29 AM - Re: Why the Jail Time? (wingnut)
3. 06:56 AM - Minimum Safe Altitudes (Trey Moran)
4. 07:09 AM - Re: OT Over the fjord (Noel Loveys)
5. 07:41 AM - Re: enclosed trailers (patrick reilly)
6. 07:46 AM - Re: Why the Jail Time? (Noel Loveys)
7. 08:15 AM - Re: Re: Why the Jail Time? (Noel Loveys)
8. 08:28 AM - Re: Minimum Safe Altitudes (Noel Loveys)
9. 09:10 AM - Re: trailer width (bjones@dmv.com)
10. 09:12 AM - Re: OT: Wind Turbine (John Alexander)
11. 09:14 AM - Re: Re: enclosed trailers (bjones@dmv.com)
12. 11:18 AM - [Off-Topic] Newfoundland (Michel Verheughe)
13. 11:32 AM - Re: Mod 3 landing gear rebuild (Bob Waldron)
14. 11:57 AM - Re: Minimum Safe Altitudes (wingnut)
15. 12:28 PM - Re: Minimum Safe Altitudes (n85ae)
16. 01:03 PM - Re: OT: Wind Turbine (Michel Verheughe)
17. 02:27 PM - Re: Re: Websites (kirk hull)
18. 04:44 PM - Fw: Why the Jail Time? (dpremgood@aim.com)
19. 10:21 PM - Jury and Stab. Strut covers (bigboyzt0yz)
20. 10:26 PM - flat area behind struts (bigboyzt0yz)
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: | OT: Wind Turbine |
> From: John Alexander [alexandj@preachain.org]
> Actually what I was getting at was that the turbine reacted according to
> the laws governing a gyroscope
Thanks John, very interesting.
@Noel. Yes, I was wrong in my first assumption. But my last email was about the
departing of only one blade.
John, isn't the rotor of a gyrocopter simply a revolving wing? I mean, you can't
change the pitch of it, can you? We have a nice Xenon gyrocopter at our airfield
and I am pretty sure that both blades of the rotor are joined together in
a way that it would be impossible for only one blade to depart.
http://www.gyrokopter.no/xenon_firstflight_norge.html
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
Do not archive
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Why the Jail Time? |
WOW. Didn't know about the 500ft above open water rule. Apparently, neither did
my first instructor. When on the subject of minimum altitude, I distinctly remember
him informing me that, when over water, the only minimum was 500ft from
people or structures.
Regarding the "minimum altitude to safely land" rule. Wouldn't a water landing
in a slow flying airplane constitute a "safe landing"? Does "safe" mean that the
pilot is likely to survive or that the airplane has a reasonable chance of
coming out of it undamaged?
--------
Luis Rodriguez
Model IV 1200
Rotax 912UL
Flying Weekly
Laurens, SC (34A)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=166546#166546
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: | Minimum Safe Altitudes |
Ok Folks,
We seem to be getting ourselves a little confused in this discussion of
what the FARs say about minimum safe altitudes. The exact wording of
FAR 91.119:
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an
aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency
landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or
settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of
1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of
2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the
surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those
cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any
person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
Trey Moran
----- Original Message -----
From: wingnut
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:25 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Why the Jail Time?
WOW. Didn't know about the 500ft above open water rule. Apparently,
neither did my first instructor. When on the subject of minimum
altitude, I distinctly remember him informing me that, when over water,
the only minimum was 500ft from people or structures.
Regarding the "minimum altitude to safely land" rule. Wouldn't a water
landing in a slow flying airplane constitute a "safe landing"? Does
"safe" mean that the pilot is likely to survive or that the airplane has
a reasonable chance of coming out of it undamaged?
--------
Luis Rodriguez
Model IV 1200
Rotax 912UL
Flying Weekly
Laurens, SC (34A)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=166546#166546
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: | Kitfox-List:OT Over the fjord |
Ok Steve... We're a bit further North than you are but we are also out in
the Atlantic Ocean where we get some warming form the gulf stream. The
previous picture was taken a couple of years ago. These two were taken a
minute ago.
9 Mi of runway wind swept.. What snow hasn't blown off is only about an
inch or so thick careful though... An icebreaker went past about six miles
away two days ago. Don' ya just hate it when you don't have a full 9 mi. To
land a Kitfox?? J
P003879.jpg
Wind here this morning is 0. So if you don't mind being too cramped you
could take off into the town I pay taxes to... It's about 1.75 mi away.
About four feet thick all the way. A hundred miles to the south of us they
have been getting pounded with all kinds of snow and even some rain. In
this country a few miles can make all the difference. Today 0C tomorrow -17
C forecast with... you guessed it snow. How much ends up in my driveway
depends on the direction of the wind.
P003880.jpg
Ok now back to the Kitfox
Yesterday I got all but two nuts released to remove my 582 and I should have
the engine and motor mount out this afternoon.
.. I had a good look at the 912 and still need an exhaust system, engine
instruments and controls. Anyone have any used??
Sigtaturea
Noel Loveys
Campbellton, NL, Canada
CDN AME intern, PP-Rec
C-FINB, Kitfox III-A
582 B box, Ivo IFA, Aerocet 1100 floats
noelloveys@yahoo.ca
WOW allsome...not like here in ohio.it is cold and snow covered here and
snowing..Steve Shinabery N554KF
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: | enclosed trailers |
Jerry, I guess I stand corrected. Another e-mail said the legal limit is 8'
-6" width for over the road nation wide.
Do not archieve
Pat Reilly
Mod 3 Rebuild
Rockford, IL
RE: Kitfox-List: enclosed trailersTo: kitfox-list@matronics.comPat that is
the limit here 8'6" according to the CHP patrick reilly <patreilly43@hotmai
l.com> wrote:
Jerry, What is max trailer width allowed in CA? It is 8' here in IL. You s
tated your trailer is 8'-6" wide. Do not archieve Pat ReillyMod 3 RebuildRo
ckford, IL
Kitfox-List: enclosed trailersTo: kitfox-list@matronics.comThese are some p
ics of my trailer built from a tandem boat trailer it's 8'6" wide 22' long
made from EMT welded together with sheet metal has the hand wench if needed
to pull it in cost was $1100 makes a great hanger for here in North
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: | Why the Jail Time? |
I guess the problem is there is no middle road. E took the passenger up
and
proceeded to get her sick then he was hot-dogging a bit on the way back
to
the field. Yes he didn=92t know the power lines were there but he was
supposed to check the charts for the area he would be flying in. Up
here
they have all structures and lines marked on the VNCs ( VFR Navigational
Charts) Occasionally they will miss a cable or someone will build a new
tower in the most amazing place but it is still up to the pilot check it
out
before flying.
Helicopter pilots and ag-sprayers sometimes get caught this way. Even
so
they are still responsible.
One of the problems may be is there doesn=92t seem to be any middle
ground..
its negligent manslaughter or nothing. The thing I look at is the
responsibility the pilot has after such a happening. His responsibility
to
the court and his responsibility to the family of the now departed
passenger. Putting him in jail for ten years won=92t help anyone. It
will
cost the court system to keep him. It will cost the family of the
passenger
additional grief to have to sit through a cold trial. It will cost the
family of the pilot income for ten years and it will cost the pilot ten
years of his life living with real criminals. No one wins here!
I think he should be found guilty of manslaughter.. Fine him $500 for
court
costs and garnish a good part of his wages for ten years or so to help
the
passenger=92s family continue with their lives. I won=92t bring the
passenger
back but it could help pay for a nanny and/or university education.
Doing
that doesn=92t cost the court system or the condemn the pilots family to
poverty for his mistake. I doubt his insurance Co would like my
=93fix=94.
Additionally I might agree with a rule he never be allowed to carry a
passenger again except if the passenger was also a pilot.
There used to be a RC aerodrome a few miles away from Torbay
International
airport, St. John=92s, Newfoundland. They were given I believe it was a
1200
foot ceiling and the airspace was restricted. One day a helicopter
taking
the short route home flew over a hill at tree top altitude and appeared
almost out of nowhere as a fan jet was making a dive run. The RC plane
went
right in front of the main rotor... Scared the crap out of the pilot,
his
passengers and the RC operator. Although he was reported to TC
(Transport
Canada) he was never written up for the intentional incursion. One can
only
guess why.
Signature
Noel Loveys
Campbellton, NL, Canada
CDN AME intern, PP-Rec
C-FINB, Kitfox III-A
582 B box, Ivo IFA, Aerocet 1100 floats
noelloveys@yahoo.ca
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Guy
Buchanan
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:08 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Why the Jail Time?
At 10:22 AM 2/26/2008, you wrote:
>Negligent homicide.....
>
>Here is a good link to the case.
Man, isn't this list awesome! Ask a
difficult question and get great answers! This is
what I was looking for, a presumption of
negligence when flying at 50'. It is interesting
that neither the ASI nor the CFI know the proper
altitude regulation that requires that you fly
high enough to land safely if the engine quits.
(91.119a) It's also interesting that 91.119c
specifically exempts staying 500' above "open
water". Don't know if the river he was over was
"open water". He certainly wasn't 500' over the
power line "structure", if that's what you call
it, though of course he didn't know it was there.
Why am I interested? Because that kind
of flying is what Kitfoxes do best. If it carries
a presumption of negligence then it just got a
lot more dangerous, (for the pilot.)
"Her opinion was that
he flew in violation of =A7 91.119 of the US FAR
91.16, which is entitled =93Minimum Safe
Altitudes=94 that requires an altitude of 500 feet
about the surface over congested areas. This
would include that an aircraft should not be
operated closer than 500 feet between a
person, vessel, vehicle or structure. She further
believes that his piloting was in violation of
FAR 91.13 entitled =93Careless or Reckless
Operation of an Aircraft.=94 ASI Krueger=92s opinion
was that Strub was negligent in the piloting of
the airplane over the River flying at altitudes
somewhere in the area of 50 feet above the water.
ASI Krueger states that all pilots are
required to fly at higher altitude so that if
there is a problem with the aircraft, the pilot can
attempt to safely land. The distances off the
ground that Strub was piloting his plane would
clearly not allow him to recover from any engine problem.
6. On August 2, 2005, Gregory Gorak, a pilot with
38 years of piloting experience, certified
as a professional flight instructor holding
several other professional certifications, stated to
Inv. Gosh that he had an opportunity to read a
copy of the accident investigation involving
the crash. In his opinion, this was clear error
on the part of the pilot in being careless and
reckless in the operation of his aircraft since
there would no time for any safe landing when
you operate an aircraft between 30 to 40 feet
above the water, other than possibly a
seaplane. Gorak is aware of the regulations as to
how many feet above water you must
safely operate and that indicated that no prudent
pilot would operate in such a manner as
the defendant did. He stated it was simply =93an accident waiting to
happen.=94"
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: Why the Jail Time? |
Louis:
Any landing you walk away form is a good one!
Any landing where you can actually use the plane again is exceptional!
:-)
I fly floats and really love flying out the bay (North Atlantic Ocean) at
ten feet... or less. Of course there is no chance of hitting a wire out
there. I fly far enough in the bay that I don't have to worry about swell.
There are enough fishing boats, Longliners etc. around though I have to keep
an eye out to give them plenty of leeway. Last summer I was flying in the
bay when I saw a friend in front of me. I dropped down parallel to him
about 500 yd off his port side. I was amazed that I could slow down slower
than he was going and still easily stay airborne. we played cat and mouse
for a few miles and then I climbed out again. The whole time I doubt I was
any closer than a half a click from him.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of wingnut
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 10:56 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Why the Jail Time?
WOW. Didn't know about the 500ft above open water rule. Apparently, neither
did my first instructor. When on the subject of minimum altitude, I
distinctly remember him informing me that, when over water, the only minimum
was 500ft from people or structures.
Regarding the "minimum altitude to safely land" rule. Wouldn't a water
landing in a slow flying airplane constitute a "safe landing"? Does "safe"
mean that the pilot is likely to survive or that the airplane has a
reasonable chance of coming out of it undamaged?
--------
Luis Rodriguez
Model IV 1200
Rotax 912UL
Flying Weekly
Laurens, SC (34A)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=166546#166546
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: | Minimum Safe Altitudes |
Now you have to define sparsely populated areas.
Around here there is a very detailed definition as to what is a legal helmet
to wear on a motorcycle or snowmobile or even a quad. Canadian Aviation
Regulations (CARs) require the pilot of a Basic Ultralight Aircraft (BULA)
wear a helmet... then they do not define what a helmet is so I guess the
field is open on that item.
Signature
Noel Loveys
Campbellton, NL, Canada
CDN AME intern, PP-Rec
C-FINB, Kitfox III-A
582 B box, Ivo IFA, Aerocet 1100 floats
noelloveys@yahoo.ca
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Trey Moran
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 11:24 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Minimum Safe Altitudes
Ok Folks,
We seem to be getting ourselves a little confused in this discussion of what
the FARs say about minimum safe altitudes. The exact wording of FAR 91.119:
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an
aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency
landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or
settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000
feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of
the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the
surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases,
the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
vehicle, or structure.
Trey Moran
----- Original Message -----
From: wingnut <mailto:wingnut@spamarrest.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:25 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Why the Jail Time?
WOW. Didn't know about the 500ft above open water rule. Apparently, neither
did my first instructor. When on the subject of minimum altitude, I
distinctly remember him informing me that, when over water, the only minimum
was 500ft from people or structures.
Regarding the "minimum altitude to safely land" rule. Wouldn't a water
landing in a slow flying airplane constitute a "safe landing"? Does "safe"
mean that the pilot is likely to survive or that the airplane has a
reasonable chance of coming out of it undamaged?
--------
Luis Rodriguez
Model IV 1200
Rotax 912UL
Flying Weekly
Laurens, SC (34A)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=166546#166546
<Bnbsp; Features Chat, --> http://www.matron======================
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List>
bsp; via the Web
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c====
===========
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: trailer width |
Most coastal states have lots of over 8'6" boat trailer traffic and enforcement
of state specific of 8' and 8'6" rules appears to be rare at least on the east
coast. My 8'6" (plus) enclosed Kitfox trailer was delivered by the manufacturer
from Oregon to Maryland without permits and since then I have towed it all over
the US with no second look by enforcement types. If a trailer looks
too "homemade", is well over 8'6" or is being towed by an obviously undersized
tow vehicle it might trigger an officers concern or if you are involved in a
personal injury accident with attorneys involved in a court case anticipate
possible problems.
Do not archive
B Jones
443-480-1023
bjones@dmv.com
. Quoting Steven Didier <steve.didier@gmail.com>:
>
> 8'6" is the legal over the road max width for all vehicles/trailers
> nation wide. Unless you have an oversize permit with pilot and follow
> me rigs!
>
> my 2 cents from a lurker and future owner!
>
> Steve Didier
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Delmarva Online's Webmail.
http://www.dmv.com/
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OT: Wind Turbine |
The majority of gyroplanes have fixed pitch, 2-bladed rotor systems and
yes, it's a rotary wing system. The blades are typically VERY strongly
connected to the center hub bar and blade departures are rare, but occur
upon blade strikes and (very rarely) mechanical failure of the blade.
Flying one is all about energy management. Gyros are always in
autorotation.
The first thing I saw with the Xenon design is that he is NOT going to
want to yaw the airframe very much while in flight. The frontal area
ahead of the rotor mast looks like it somewhat exceeds the area of the
vertical stabilizers. The Air and Space 18A (one of 2 certified gyro
types) was strictly limited in yaw.
It's a really spiffy looking design though. I'd love to fly it.
John Alexander
Michel Verheughe wrote:
>> From: John Alexander [alexandj@preachain.org]
>> Actually what I was getting at was that the turbine reacted according to
>> the laws governing a gyroscope
>>
>
> Thanks John, very interesting.
>
> @Noel. Yes, I was wrong in my first assumption. But my last email was about the
departing of only one blade.
>
> John, isn't the rotor of a gyrocopter simply a revolving wing? I mean, you can't
change the pitch of it, can you? We have a nice Xenon gyrocopter at our airfield
and I am pretty sure that both blades of the rotor are joined together
in a way that it would be impossible for only one blade to depart.
>
> http://www.gyrokopter.no/xenon_firstflight_norge.html
>
> Cheers,
> Michel Verheughe
> Norway
> Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
>
> Do not archive
>
>
> <pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
>
>
> </b></font></pre>
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: enclosed trailers |
Consider supporting the tail where the tail spring attaches to the fuselage to
avoid aft CG stress on tail wheel spring while trailering and avoiding impact
of spring on rudder because of limited clearance in this area on some model IVs
do not archive
B Jones
443-480-1023
N154K
Quoting Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>:
> You could also carry a little ballast to soften the ride.... Lots cheaper.
>
>
>
> Noel
>
>
>
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marco Menezes
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 3:35 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: enclosed trailers
>
>
>
> John:
>
>
>
> Don't know much about enclosed trailers but hard trailer suspensions are an
> issue whether open or enclosed. Most boat-type trailers from which our
> home-made trailers are typically constructed, are designed to carry much
> more than your Fox weighs. As a result, every bounce will be transmitted
> directly to the cargo rather than "absorbed" by the suspension. Double axles
> help some.
>
>
>
> As you probably know, the stock, Kitfox single-leaf steel tailspring was
> notoriously prone to failure under the best of conditions. With the wings
> folded, the load on this spring increases dramatically. So if you do nothing
> else, find a way to unload and limit the flexing of the tail spring during
> transport.
>
> john beirne <jmcb@oceanfree.net> wrote:
>
>
> _____
>
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Delmarva Online's Webmail.
http://www.dmv.com/
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: | [Off-Topic] Newfoundland |
On Feb 27, 2008, at 12:24 AM, Noel Loveys wrote:
> This si about 200mi form LAnse Aux meadows the way the Seagull flies.
Noel, years ago, a colleague came back from St John's with a cap with a
big guano goo and the text: "Damn Newfoundland's seagulls!"
The funny part is that, at the time (23 years ago) and still now, I
work for a company named Seagull. We were at St John's to install what
was at the time the world's largest maritime simulator with a entire
ship's bridge installed on a 6-degrees of motion platform and a 360
degrees visual system. The installation was made by Norcontrol but we
provided the navigation instrument simulators.
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
Do not archive
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: | Mod 3 landing gear rebuild |
Pat, do you have a photo. I have a model 3 and not sure what you are
describing.
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pat Reilly
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:17 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Mod 3 landing gear rebuild
Kitfoxers, OK, I give up. I bought a damaged Mod 3. The landing gear was
knocked out from under it while on a trailer by a car. Included in the
purchase was a set of new landing gear struts. Wired to the struts are 2 tee
pipes. They are 3" tall with a 3/4" cross piece welded on top. They are made
from 3/8" dia. steel tubing. The top cross piece is 9/16" ID with a 5/32" ID
at one end. What are they used for?
Pat Reilly
Mod 3 Rebuild
Rockford, IL
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: Minimum Safe Altitudes |
OK. That's more like what my instructor taught me. I misunderstood the water exemption.
I thought it meant that you had to fly higher. Seems clear to me that
the FAR means that you can fly as low as you like over open water.
So it seams that much of the case against the pilot pivots on whether the river
in question qualifies as open water or a congested area in this case. The point
made in the case in regards to being too low to make "safe landing" is completely
wrong. There's nothing in the FAR about making a safe landing at all.
Clearly ditching in a river has zero chance of causing undue hazard to people
or structures on the ground if you're more than 500ft away.
> We seem to be getting ourselves a little confused in this discussion of what
the FARs say about minimum safe altitudes. The exact wording of FAR 91.119:
>
> Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft
below the following altitudes:
> (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing
without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
> (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement,
or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above
the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
> (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface,
except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft
may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle,
or structure.
--------
Luis Rodriguez
Model IV 1200
Rotax 912UL
Flying Weekly
Laurens, SC (34A)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=166621#166621
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: Minimum Safe Altitudes |
My personal definition of minimum safe altitude changed after my first
engine failure. :)
Jeff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=166624#166624
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: OT: Wind Turbine |
On Feb 27, 2008, at 6:04 PM, John Alexander wrote:
> The first thing I saw with the Xenon design is that he is NOT going to
> want to yaw the airframe very much while in flight.
Could be, John. I don't know anything about those strange birds.
Incidentally I was going to fly formation with this gyrocopter to
another place for a fly-in, last fall. But before departure, he wanted
first to take some photos together with a photographer. He went up and
the photographer opened the plexiglas door when it broke in two, one
part felt but, in the process, hit the tip of one of the Rotax's
propeller blades. He did a perfect landing on idle and the gyrocopter
went into the hangar. The owner then became my right seat passenger for
the fly-in.
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
Do not archive
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
There are a few pics of my classic 4 in the eaa chapter 612 web site.
www.roosterville612.org then goto the member projects page and then al &
kirks Kitfox
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Guy Buchanan
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Websites
At 10:47 AM 2/26/2008, you wrote:
>I have attached a couple pics of my progress for some motivation for
>you. These are great little airplanes and the build, although
>completely different than building an RV, is every bit as satisfying
>(I've done both now).
The whole plane looks great, but I'm really drooling over the seats.
Did you make them?
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: | Why the Jail Time? |
-----Original Message-----
Good day all,
I have been following this thread with great interest because this very
ame disscussion came up last year on our flying club website.
Here's the FAR as copied from the FAA website:
=C2=A7 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an
ircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency
anding without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or
ettlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of
,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of
,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the
urface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those
ases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any
erson, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
91.119(a) is simple; don't hurt yourself or anybody/anything else if
he engine quits.
1.119(c) is also simple; if your over open water, or sparsley
opulated areas (ie the boonies), you can fly below 500 feet agl
rovided you stay at least 500 feet away from any person, vessel,
ehicle, or structure.
If your in compliance with 91.119 (a) and (c) you can fly below 500 ft
gl safely and legally.
Our club sent this very same question to Transport Canada last year.
ur minimum altitude requirements are the same as in the FARs.
ere's what transpired with us:
Les Gars,
I contacted Transport Canada this morning for a clarification of
AR602.14. Here is the reply:
Hi Doug,
This is Section 602.14 of the CAR's:
602.14
(2) Except where conducting a take-off, approach or landing or where
ermitted under section 602.15, no person shall operate an aircraft
(a) over a built-up area or over an open-air assembly of persons
nless the aircraft is operated at an altitude from which, in the
vent of an emergency necessitating an immediate landing, it would be
ossible to land the aircraft without creating a hazard to persons or
roperty on the surface, and, in any case, at an altitude that is not
ower than
(i) for aeroplanes, 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle located
ithin a horizontal distance of 2,000 feet from the aeroplane,
(ii) for balloons, 500 feet above the highest obstacle located within
horizontal distance of 500 feet from the balloon, or
(iii) for an aircraft other than an aeroplane or a balloon, 1,000
eet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance
f 500 feet from the aircraft; and
(b) in circumstances other than those referred to in paragraph (a),
t a distance less than 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle or
tructure.
In fact, para. (b) permits you to fly lower than 500'. The only
equirement is to remain at least at a distance of 500' from the
ighest obstacle, measured in any direction. In other words, it is
ike staying outside a 500' sphere from the obstacle.
egards,
oug Remoundos
-----Original Message-----
rom: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
o: kitfox-list@matronics.com
ent: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:37 pm
ubject: RE: Kitfox-List: Why the Jail Time?
At 10:22 AM 2/26/2008, you wrote:
Negligent homicide.....
Here is a good link to the case.
Man, isn't this list awesome! Ask a
ifficult question and get great answers! This is
hat I was looking for, a presumption of
egligence when flying at 50'. It is interesting
hat neither the ASI nor the CFI know the proper
ltitude regulation that requires that you fly
igh enough to land safely if the engine quits.
91.119a) It's also interesting that 91.119c
pecifically exempts staying 500' above "open
ater". Don't know if the river he was over was
open water". He certainly wasn't 500' over the
ower line "structure", if that's what you call
t, though of course he didn't know it was there.
Why am I interested? Because that kind
f flying is what Kitfoxes do best. If it carries
presumption of negligence then it just got a
ot more dangerous, (for the pilot.)
"Her opinion was that
e flew in violation of =C2=A7 91.119 of the US FAR
1.16, which is entitled =9CMinimum Safe
ltitudes=9D that requires an altitude of 500 feet
bout the surface over congested areas. This
ould include that an aircraft should not be
perated closer than 500 feet between a
erson, vessel, vehicle or structure. She further
elieves that his piloting was in violation of
AR 91.13 entitled =9CCareless or Reckless
peration of an Aircraft.=9D ASI Krueger=99s opinion
as that Strub was negligent in the piloting of
he airplane over the River flying at altitudes
omewhere in the area of 50 feet above the water.
SI Krueger states that all pilots are
equired to fly at higher altitude so that if
here is a problem with the aircraft, the pilot can
ttempt to safely land. The distances off the
round that Strub was piloting his plane would
learly not allow him to recover from any engine problem.
6. On August 2, 2005, Gregory Gorak, a pilot with
8 years of piloting experience, certified
s a professional flight instructor holding
everal other professional certifications, stated to
nv. Gosh that he had an opportunity to read a
opy of the accident investigation involving
he crash. In his opinion, this was clear error
n the part of the pilot in being careless and
eckless in the operation of his aircraft since
here would no time for any safe landing when
ou operate an aircraft between 30 to 40 feet
bove the water, other than possibly a
eaplane. Gorak is aware of the regulations as to
ow many feet above water you must
afely operate and that indicated that no prudent
ilot would operate in such a manner as
he defendant did. He stated it was simply =9Can accident waiting to
appen.=9D"
uy Buchanan
an Diego, CA
-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
-= - The Kitfox-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
-========================
-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
-========================
-= - List Contribution Web Site -
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-========================
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: | Jury and Stab. Strut covers |
Was wondering what is out there to put on the Jury and Hoz. Stab tubes to clean
them up. I really want something that does not require putting wood on them and
covering with fabric. I have started installing the PVC covers on the Struts.
Looking better.
--------
Lee Fritz in owings Mills Md. 2002 KitFox-IV Classic/912UL/Warp drive prop/100%
Complete (just adding the Extras now) /71 hours time on plane since Aug 07 "Have
your feet on the Pedals and keep reaching for the sky".
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=166689#166689
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_6774_166.jpg
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: | flat area behind struts |
The flat area where the strut fairing is trimmed so the wings can fold. Is there
any need to put a section of foil that anyone has put on the tapered part that
is removable when you want to fold the wings and does it really help or will
it not be noticeable,
--------
Lee Fritz in owings Mills Md. 2002 KitFox-IV Classic/912UL/Warp drive prop/100%
Complete (just adding the Extras now) /71 hours time on plane since Aug 07 "Have
your feet on the Pedals and keep reaching for the sky".
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=166690#166690
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! --
|