---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 02/27/08: 20 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:36:15 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:29:03 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Why the Jail Time? From: "wingnut" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:56:47 AM PST US From: "Trey Moran" 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:09:05 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:41:52 AM PST US From: patrick reilly Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:46:38 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:15:09 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:28:45 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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 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 http://www.matron====================== 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:10:49 AM PST US From: bjones@dmv.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 : > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:12:11 AM PST US From: John Alexander Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 > > > 

>
>
>
________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 09:14:14 AM PST US From: bjones@dmv.com Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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 : > 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 wrote: > > > _____ > > Be a better friend, newshound, and > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using Delmarva Online's Webmail. http://www.dmv.com/ ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 11:18:53 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Kitfox-List: [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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:32:14 AM PST US From: "Bob Waldron" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:57:52 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Minimum Safe Altitudes From: "wingnut" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:28:10 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Minimum Safe Altitudes From: "n85ae" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:03:03 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:27:23 PM PST US From: "kirk hull" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Websites 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:44:24 PM PST US Subject: Fwd: Kitfox-List: Why the Jail Time? From: dpremgood@aim.com -----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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:21:44 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Jury and Stab. Strut covers From: "bigboyzt0yz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:26:29 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: flat area behind struts From: "bigboyzt0yz" 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message kitfox-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.