Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:24 AM - Re: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder (dave)
2. 03:54 AM - Tricycle Kitfox II - Weight constraints (Jose M. Toro)
3. 05:54 AM - Re: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM (Catz631@aol.com)
4. 06:56 AM - Re: Onus or Otis? (Noel Loveys)
5. 07:07 AM - Re: Tricycle Kitfox II - Weight constraints (SkySteve)
6. 07:12 AM - Re: Onus or Otis? (Jim_and_Lucy Chuk)
7. 07:16 AM - Re: Compass Question (Sbennett3@aol.com)
8. 07:32 AM - Re: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder (SkySteve)
9. 07:46 AM - Re: Compass Question (84KF)
10. 08:18 AM - Re: Tricycle Kitfox II - Weight constraints (fox5flyer)
11. 08:18 AM - Re: Re: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder (Rexinator)
12. 08:38 AM - Gear reduxction box (Frank Miles)
13. 08:39 AM - Re: Onus or Otis? (Lynn Matteson)
14. 08:47 AM - Re: Tricycle Kitfox II - Weight constraints (SkySteve)
15. 09:20 AM - Re: Tricycle Kitfox II - Weight constraints (Tom Jones)
16. 09:23 AM - More on Sky King.... (kaufjm@aol.com)
17. 09:26 AM - Re: Tricycle Kitfox II - Weight constraints (fox5flyer)
18. 09:34 AM - Re: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM (Kenneth and Alice Jones)
19. 09:43 AM - Re: Tricycle Kitfox II - Weight constraints (SkySteve)
20. 11:04 AM - Re: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM (Clint Bazzill)
21. 11:04 AM - Re: Re: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder (Noel Loveys)
22. 11:05 AM - Re: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM (Don G)
23. 11:33 AM - Re: Re: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder (Noel Loveys)
24. 11:49 AM - Re: Re: Tricycle Kitfox II - Weight constraints (Jim Corner)
25. 11:51 AM - Re: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM (fox5flyer)
26. 11:56 AM - Re: Re: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM (fox5flyer)
27. 12:04 PM - Re: Compass Question (Noel Loveys)
28. 12:04 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM (Guy Buchanan)
29. 12:04 PM - Re: Gary Buchanan, Flying Close Formation with King Air (Guy Buchanan)
30. 12:04 PM - Re: Re: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder (Guy Buchanan)
31. 12:20 PM - Re: Re: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder (Noel Loveys)
32. 12:47 PM - Re: OT - Onus or Otis? (Noel Loveys)
33. 12:54 PM - Re: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM (wingnut)
34. 01:37 PM - OT popular misconceptions (Rexinator)
35. 02:36 PM - Re: OT popular misconceptions (vetdrem)
36. 03:22 PM - Re: Onus or Otis? (John W. Hart)
37. 05:22 PM - Re: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM (Kenneth and Alice Jones)
38. 05:22 PM - Re: Re: OT popular misconceptions (Rexinator)
39. 05:48 PM - Re: OT popular misconceptions (Noel Loveys)
40. 06:30 PM - Re: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM (wingnut)
41. 06:41 PM - Re: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM ()
42. 06:50 PM - Homebuilders special tailwheel swap (Rexinator)
43. 07:43 PM - Re: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM (Don G)
44. 08:54 PM - Re: Compass Question (Andy Fultz)
45. 09:47 PM - Gas Cap Gaskets (Nick Scholtes)
46. 11:28 PM - Re: Sky King.... (rudderdancer)
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: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder |
Steve,
> Now, just so we are both on the same page. And just in case your comments were
about something I might have said earlier in this thread, please read all my
comments. Especially the one where I very clearly state, and I quote, "So, I
am confident that all has been presented to me in a fully disclosed and truthful
manner." This final comment seems to have been missed too many times already.
>
>
You can believe and say that all you like and it is possible that Dan Denney did
mods that made your Kitfox 1 different than other Kitfox 1s with a gross weight
of 850. They did weight around 400 lbs empty you know. Also the VNE of the
Model 1 was 100 mph and with your 912 I would venture to guess that you will
surpass that. Model 1 cruise speed as about 75 mph so your cruise will likely
be closer to the vne now and something to think about in rough air.
I am surprised that no one else is voicing their thoughts on this matter already.
If there was mods done then it would be of great benefit for others to be
able to do these structural mods on their Early models as well if practical.
And if there were no mods done then it is good for you to know that the builder
might have just set a higher gross weight on a Model 1 and that is up to you
to decide. You are 25% over gross weight now from the original design of
the Model 1 and definitely are in the test pilot stages if not proven other wise.
> So, I am confident that all has been presented to me in a fully disclosed and
truthful manner." This final comment seems to have been missed too many times
already.
Better get a affidavit from Dan Denney on this matter
--------
Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada
Flying Videos and Kitfox Info
http://www.cfisher.com/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=170567#170567
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: | Tricycle Kitfox II - Weight constraints |
Steve:
Do you know the weight of the Grover gear alone?
Our Kitfox II currently weights 520 pounds, and the gross weight is 950 pounds.
Based on this information, if we add 46 pounds with the conversion, the plane
will practically become a single seater.
This plane also has one modification. When I bought it, it had one wing lift strut
longer thn the other, most likely due to a repair from a previous crash.
I flew it like that for 10 years, no problem. When the new owner restored it,
we became aware that the shorter one was from a model II and the longer was
from a model III. We replaced both with brand new model III wing lift struts
that we bought from John McBean. It works great! Last night I did some numbers,
and found that if I fly with the owner and 9 gallons of gas, we take off
34 pounds over gross weight. It is incredible the performance we obtain from
the 582 at that weight. However, it is not legal and is not the safest way to
go.
Based on this information, we will need to go back to the drawing board and analyze
our alternatives. In order to make it tricycle, we will need to go for a
lighter, homemade alternative. Otherwise, it will have to remain taildragger...and
maybe find a new, "lighter" owner.
Jose
----- Original Message ----
From: SkySteve <Wilson@REinfo.org>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 10:10:05 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder
Jose,
The new rudder is both taller and wider. The total added weight for all the mods
I have completed is 46#. Adding the nose wheel and the Grove main gear were
the largest weight gains. Weight went from 579# to 625#.
--------
Steve Wilson
Huntsville, UT
Kitfox I-IV 85DD
912A / 3 Blade Warp Drive
Convertable Nosewheel & Tailwheel
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=170367#170367
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
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: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM |
Don, Don't feel like the 'Lone Ranger" I too have been having fits landing my
Kitfox like a normal taildragger.In fact when I first bought the plane the
engine quit on me three times on final (3 different flights) and the airplane
landed very nicely. Well, like a dummy I adjusted the idle back up so it
wouldn't happen again and like you, it wouldn't land cause you can't get the power
back far enough! So now I have it adjusted as it was and make the rpm part of my
landing scan. As the former owner said it's called "slip and plop" Nature of
the beast I guess. (with a Rotax 912 anyway-weird engine)
Dick Maddux
Fox4-1200
Rotax 912UL
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
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 |
|
Rex:
As soon as I saw the header, I see headers before downloading the whole
E-Mail into my computer. Doing so is another guard against getting a virus
or some other nasty beastie. Any way, you are correct it is onus not Otis.
My elevator must be descending. The only correction I can see right now,
before having a look at your link, is for me to; open mouth and change feet.
:-)
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rexinator
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 3:19 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Onus or Otis?
Noel and Steve,
I respect you both for what you have contributed here, please believe
that. I wish I could speak from as much life experience as even the
average person on this list. I hope our discussions serve all towards
increasing understanding of every aspect of owning a Kitfox. Without
personal conflicts would be preferable. We should all know it is
trickier to debate subjects via email than in person and still avoid
provoking misunderstandings.
That said, shouldn't it be: onus not Otis? This is a minor detail to be
sure. We all have errors and misconceptions, I know I do and have made
similar errors. I hope someone will point them out to me when I make one
again.
I'm doing this now because I read a great little article here:
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/str/4.html
It kinda got me fired up to try to correct errors when I see them. It'll
subside soon and I'll get back to letting these little nitpicks go
without comment. Otherwise good points of discussion.
--
Rex Hefferan
SE Colorado / K-II / 582-C / still waiting repairs
Noel Loveys wrote:
> The builder is the manufacturer of the plane... as such he has the
> right to put whatever weight rating on the plane he wants. How can
> that be fraud. If you wnt to be totally safe check the construction of
> your plane against other model I. There is no law that I know of that
> says you have to fly up to 1050. If on the other hand you find the
> pass throughs have been beefed up, The spars have additional internal
> support Etc. Etc then feel safe to fly to Mr. Denney's spec. The Otis,
> as I see it, is on you, the pilot, to make sure your plane is safe.
>
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: Tricycle Kitfox II - Weight constraints |
Jose,
Sorry, but I don't know the total weight of just the grove gear. The weight gain I quoted was for all the mods we did. The grove website lists the model 3 & 4 gear (which is the one I used) as 24.3#. You will also need axles and their website does not give the weight for them, although it would be very small. Here is their website, perhaps you can contact them and they can give you the info you want: www.groveaircraft.com
--------
Steve Wilson
Huntsville, UT
Kitfox I-IV 85DD
912A / 3 Blade Warp Drive
Convertable Nosewheel & Tailwheel
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=170613#170613
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 |
|
One word or the other really doesn't change the fact that it does no good t
o shoot the bearer of bad news if the news is true. Another fact is that i
n a crash, the pilot is likley the first one there and the one most affecte
d by it. Jim Chuk Avids Mn> From: noelloveys@yahoo.ca> To: kitfox-list@
matronics.com> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Onus or Otis?> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2
lloveys@yahoo.ca>> > Rex:> > As soon as I saw the header, I see headers bef
ore downloading the whole> E-Mail into my computer. Doing so is another gua
rd against getting a virus> or some other nasty beastie. Any way, you are c
orrect it is onus not Otis.> My elevator must be descending. The only corre
ction I can see right now,> before having a look at your link, is for me to
; open mouth and change feet.> :-)> > Noel> > -----Original Message-----> F
rom: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-serv
er@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rexinator> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 3:1
9 AM> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> Subject: Kitfox-List: Onus or Otis?> >
and Steve,> I respect you both for what you have contributed here, please
believe > that. I wish I could speak from as much life experience as even t
he > average person on this list. I hope our discussions serve all towards
> increasing understanding of every aspect of owning a Kitfox. Without > pe
rsonal conflicts would be preferable. We should all know it is > trickier t
o debate subjects via email than in person and still avoid > provoking misu
nderstandings.> That said, shouldn't it be: onus not Otis? This is a minor
detail to be > sure. We all have errors and misconceptions, I know I do and
have made > similar errors. I hope someone will point them out to me when
I make one > again.> I'm doing this now because I read a great little artic
le here: > http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/str/4.html> It kinda got me
fired up to try to correct errors when I see them. It'll > subside soon an
d I'll get back to letting these little nitpicks go > without comment. Othe
rwise good points of discussion.> > -- > Rex Hefferan> SE Colorado / K-II /
582-C / still waiting repairs> > > Noel Loveys wrote:> > > The builder is
the manufacturer of the plane... as such he has the > > right to put whatev
er weight rating on the plane he wants. How can > > that be fraud. If you w
nt to be totally safe check the construction of > > your plane against othe
r model I. There is no law that I know of that > > says you have to fly up
to 1050. If on the other hand you find the > > pass throughs have been beef
ed up, The spars have additional internal > > support Etc. Etc then feel sa
fe to fly to Mr. Denney's spec. The Otis, > > as I see it, is on you, the p
===================> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser!
http://biggestloser.msn.com/
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: Compass Question |
Andy, After you install the compass in your plane,Get a brass screwdriver
Line it up on either a runway, or a compass row and swing it. If you have a
runway 2/20. And the compass reads 030. Swing the airplane around, face 200 and
see if its still 10 deg off. split the difference between. You should also
swing it for East/West. Hope this helps. Steve Bennett
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder |
Dave,
Yes, I agree with all of your comments in your last post. In fact, I have to admit
that I was just going along fat, dumb and happy with the entire upgrade on
my plane until you suggested that the builder may have just written down a number
(1050#). Until that I just assumed all the information I had was honest
and accurate. I still do think the info is honest and accurate, but I will also
back-check the figures now. Believe me, I really don't want to die trying
to fly an aircraft that is unsafe due to possible intentional fraud!!
Yesterday I placed a phone call to the builder of my plane to ask about this very
issue. He did not answer so I left a message requesting a call back. As of
right now I have not received a phone call. I have also asked the current Kitfox
Aircraft company for help with this issue. They know the builder, I do
not.
Again, I must assume that the information I was given is correct, and when verified
as such I plan to report back here that those involved have high integrity,
honesty and have accomplished great things for the aircraft industry.
--------
Steve Wilson
Huntsville, UT
Kitfox I-IV 85DD
912A / 3 Blade Warp Drive
Convertable Nosewheel & Tailwheel
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=170623#170623
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: Compass Question |
* Try this:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99c827db9baac81b86256b4500596c4e/$FILE/Chapter%2012-13.pdf
SECTION 3. GROUND OPERATIONAL CHECKS FOR AVIONICS EQUIPMENT
(NON ELECTRICAL
12-37. COMPASS SWING
Yes..., I know it refers to a " wet compss" type, but the procedure is
sound.
In lieu of a "Master Compass", many airports have a "compass rose" on the
"ramp" just for this purpose.
Steve Benesh A&P, IA
KF 5\ 912UL
*
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: Tricycle Kitfox II - Weight constraints |
Steve, this probably doesn't apply to your situation, but taken relatively,
you can get an idea. When I was building my S5 I weighed my grove gear
complete with axles, bolts, attachments, and wheels, and it came to almost
exactly 75lbs. The Grove gear is nice, but there's definitely a weight
penalty involved. If you're trying to keep the airplane light, you might be
better off going with the standard gear and bungies. They work fine.
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress."
- Joseph Joubert
----- Original Message -----
From: "SkySteve" <Wilson@REinfo.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:05 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Tricycle Kitfox II - Weight constraints
>
> Jose,
> Sorry, but I don't know the total weight of just the grove gear. The
> weight gain I quoted was for all the mods we did. The grove website lists
> the model 3 & 4 gear (which is the one I used) as 24.3#. You will also
> need axles and their website does not give the weight for them, although
> it would be very small. Here is their website, perhaps you can contact
> them and they can give you the info you want: www.groveaircraft.com
>
> --------
> Steve Wilson
> Huntsville, UT
> Kitfox I-IV 85DD
> 912A / 3 Blade Warp Drive
> Convertable Nosewheel & Tailwheel
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=170613#170613
>
>
>
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: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder |
Certainly Dan Denny had the resources to easily do exactly what he
documented. He could have rebuilt the entire aircraft (or had it done)
more than once on a whim. So it is fully believeable that N85DD is safe
at 1050 gross.
IMHO
--
Rex Hefferan
SE Colorado / K-II / 582-C / still waiting repairs
SkySteve wrote:
>
>Dave,
>Yes, I agree with all of your comments in your last post. In fact, I have to
admit that I was just going along fat, dumb and happy with the entire upgrade
on my plane until you suggested that the builder may have just written down a
number (1050#). Until that I just assumed all the information I had was honest
and accurate. I still do think the info is honest and accurate, but I will
also back-check the figures now. Believe me, I really don't want to die trying
to fly an aircraft that is unsafe due to possible intentional fraud!!
>
>Yesterday I placed a phone call to the builder of my plane to ask about this very
issue. He did not answer so I left a message requesting a call back. As
of right now I have not received a phone call. I have also asked the current
Kitfox Aircraft company for help with this issue. They know the builder, I do
not.
>
>Again, I must assume that the information I was given is correct, and when verified
as such I plan to report back here that those involved have high integrity,
honesty and have accomplished great things for the aircraft industry.
>
>--------
>Steve Wilson
>Huntsville, UT
>Kitfox I-IV 85DD
>912A / 3 Blade Warp Drive
>Convertable Nosewheel & Tailwheel
>
>
>
>
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: | Gear reduxction box |
Gents,
I have a Rotax 582 w/ a 3:1 gear reduction unit that has approximately
500
hours on it. What is the acceptable amount of gear =93slap=94 (for lack
of a
better word right now) if any? Is there a method for adjusting it?
Frank Miles
K-III w/ 582
Checked by AVG.
3/18/2008
8:10 AM
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: Onus or Otis? |
If I only had a nickel for every time I had to bite my tongue over
some of the wording, misspelling, punctuation, etc., of some of the
posts I've read here, and I know I've added a few myself. Sometimes I
wonder how some of us got to be pilots...thank God the knowledge test
didn't require proper English, or writing skills. Wait a
minute....maybe if it did, they'd weed out a few more pilots. : )
Lynn Matteson
Grass Lake, Michigan
Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
flying w/480+ hrs
do not archive
On Mar 18, 2008, at 1:49 AM, Rexinator wrote:
>
> Noel and Steve,
> I respect you both for what you have contributed here, please
> believe that. I wish I could speak from as much life experience as
> even the average person on this list. I hope our discussions serve
> all towards increasing understanding of every aspect of owning a
> Kitfox. Without personal conflicts would be preferable. We should
> all know it is trickier to debate subjects via email than in person
> and still avoid provoking misunderstandings.
> That said, shouldn't it be: onus not Otis? This is a minor detail
> to be sure. We all have errors and misconceptions, I know I do and
> have made similar errors. I hope someone will point them out to me
> when I make one again.
> I'm doing this now because I read a great little article here:
> http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/str/4.html
> It kinda got me fired up to try to correct errors when I see them.
> It'll subside soon and I'll get back to letting these little
> nitpicks go without comment. Otherwise good points of discussion.
>
> --
> Rex Hefferan
> SE Colorado / K-II / 582-C / still waiting repairs
>
>
> Noel Loveys wrote:
>
>> The builder is the manufacturer of the plane... as such he has the
>> right to put whatever weight rating on the plane he wants. How can
>> that be fraud. If you wnt to be totally safe check the
>> construction of your plane against other model I. There is no law
>> that I know of that says you have to fly up to 1050. If on the
>> other hand you find the pass throughs have been beefed up, The
>> spars have additional internal support Etc. Etc then feel safe to
>> fly to Mr. Denneys spec. The Otis, as I see it, is on you, the
>> pilot, to make sure your plane is safe.
>>
>
>
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: Tricycle Kitfox II - Weight constraints |
Deke,
Very good point regarding the weight. The interesting point would seem to be,
what is the weight difference between the standard gear and bungee vrs the Grove
gear, axles, bolts, etc. Also, is it possible to use the standard gear and
bungees in a trigear format like you can with the Grove gear?
--------
Steve Wilson
Huntsville, UT
Kitfox I-IV 85DD
912A / 3 Blade Warp Drive
Convertable Nosewheel & Tailwheel
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=170653#170653
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: Tricycle Kitfox II - Weight constraints |
When I was building my Classic 4 I considered the Grove spring gear. I remember
I got the weight from either Grove or from someone on the list. What I do
remember well is that the difference in installed weight between Grove and stock
tube gear was 25 pounds.
--------
Tom Jones
Classic IV
503 Rotax, 72 inch Two blade Warp
Ellensburg, WA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=170661#170661
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: | More on Sky King.... |
That's a neat story Don, thanks for sharing. I remember seeing the
Songbird at Oshkosh too, I wish I could have seen Penny, that would
have been cool.
If any one has saved old copies of aviation magazines like I do, I
saved a Private Pilot magazine from June of 1998. It has a good article
about the Sky King show. My wife always wanted to throw it away but I
kept it just for the Sky King article. Any way, a disturbing thing in
this article that shocked me was (get your Kleenex out, boys) Kirby
Grant Hoon jr.(Sky King) wasn't a licensed pilot. Didn't even like
flying.
I am real sorry about that guys, but according to the article he was an
actor in "B" movies and comedies and a few musicals. His stage name
then was Robert Stanton. He also was considered a child prodigy on the
violin. I think that's enough for now.
I've got all the information on the Songbirds. If you are interested
I'll write that up too. Let me know.
Jon Kaufmann
IV 1200 N153JK
Bettendorf IA.
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: Tricycle Kitfox II - Weight constraints |
I don't know the answer to your question of using the bungie gear with nose
wheel, but can't see why not. Someone here might have some "personal"
experience with it to help you out with advice. As for the difference in
weight of the bungie/Grove setup, I've heard 25lbs, but I can't verify that.
Perhaps one of the listers here has changed over and weighed both. To keep
apples to apples, both would have to be weighed with all accouterments
included exactly the same, by the same person on the same scales. I recall
someone doing that, but it's been a long time. He might chime in here. Be
careful of anecdotal evidence here. It's something to consider, but not
worth much.
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress."
- Joseph Joubert
----- Original Message -----
From: "SkySteve" <Wilson@REinfo.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 11:45 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Tricycle Kitfox II - Weight constraints
>
> Deke,
> Very good point regarding the weight. The interesting point would seem to
> be, what is the weight difference between the standard gear and bungee vrs
> the Grove gear, axles, bolts, etc. Also, is it possible to use the
> standard gear and bungees in a trigear format like you can with the Grove
> gear?
>
> --------
> Steve Wilson
> Huntsville, UT
> Kitfox I-IV 85DD
> 912A / 3 Blade Warp Drive
> Convertable Nosewheel & Tailwheel
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=170653#170653
>
>
>
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: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM |
I'm confused about this subject. I'm a Series 7 builder. I have a 912S
not yet installed. I thought I was building a STOL aircraft that could
land short. I knew the engine idle speed was high, but I thought the
gear box reduced the prop speed so that it was not providing thrust at
idle speed. These messages suggest that is not correct. Do I have to
change to another engine to get STOL landings?
Ken Jones
Waynesboro, PA
Series 7 builder
----- Original Message -----
From: Catz631@aol.com
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM
Don, Don't feel like the 'Lone Ranger" I too have been having fits
landing my Kitfox like a normal taildragger.In fact when I first bought
the plane the engine quit on me three times on final (3 different
flights) and the airplane landed very nicely. Well, like a dummy I
adjusted the idle back up so it wouldn't happen again and like you, it
wouldn't land cause you can't get the power back far enough! So now I
have it adjusted as it was and make the rpm part of my landing scan. As
the former owner said it's called "slip and plop" Nature of the beast I
guess. (with a Rotax 912 anyway-weird engine)
Dick Maddux
Fox4-1200
Rotax 912UL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
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: Tricycle Kitfox II - Weight constraints |
Deke,
Good points for consideration.
--------
Steve Wilson
Huntsville, UT
Kitfox I-IV 85DD
912A / 3 Blade Warp Drive
Convertable Nosewheel & Tailwheel
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=170673#170673
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: | Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM |
The kitfox is STOL because of light wing loading and lots of power to weigh
t. Its not like an airplane with big wing flaps that allows you to put you
self behind the power curve and adjust your glide by power. The Kitfox gl
ides very well, kind of like landing a C 150 with no flaps. A completely d
ifferent approach (No Pun) to the technique to landing, doing a lot of slip
ping. I have had the engine stop on landing a couple times, trying to get
the airplane to slow down. Practice landings with a kitfox over a 50 foot
obstacle and this will help a lot. My 2 cents worth. Clint
From: kmamjones@comcast.netTo: kitfox-list@matronics.comSubject: Re: Kitfox
-List: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPMDate: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:27:28 -0400
I'm confused about this subject. I'm a Series 7 builder. I have a 912S not
yet installed. I thought I was building a STOL aircraft that could land sh
ort. I knew the engine idle speed was high, but I thought the gear box redu
ced the prop speed so that it was not providing thrust at idle speed. Thes
e messages suggest that is not correct. Do I have to change to another eng
ine to get STOL landings?
Ken Jones
Waynesboro, PA
Series 7 builder
----- Original Message -----
From: Catz631@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM
Don, Don't feel like the 'Lone Ranger" I too have been having fits landing
my Kitfox like a normal taildragger.In fact when I first bought the plane t
he engine quit on me three times on final (3 different flights) and the air
plane landed very nicely. Well, like a dummy I adjusted the idle back up so
it wouldn't happen again and like you, it wouldn't land cause you can't ge
t the power back far enough! So now I have it adjusted as it was and make t
he rpm part of my landing scan. As the former owner said it's called "slip
and plop" Nature of the beast I guess. (with a Rotax 912 anyway-weird engi
ne)
Dick Maddux
Fox4-1200
Rotax 912UL
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
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 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: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder |
I think we are talking about two different things here. Financial liability
or responsibility and your responsibility to yourself.
As the pilot the onus is on you to make sure your plane is safe, for the
type of flying you will be doing. There are several reasons why your plane
may have a much higher gross weigh on the data plate than other model I
kitfoxes. It would be irresponsible if not libellous for me to express an
opinion that Mr. D. was or is in any way party to a fraud.
As you mentioned when Mr D. designed the plane he also built in a margin of
safety (+- 3G?) Because this is a prototype he may have decided to go for
broke and register the plane for its design limits less a bit (?) for safety
as you say. Then went ahead and registered the plane for every pound he
thought it would be able to hold... rounded that figure up to the nearest
fifty pounds and ended up with 1050lb. This would sound great to him.. it
would allow him enough leeway to do all the flight testing he wanted.
Admittedly in the production of the kit planes, through testing, he
developed a lower gross weight and of course he wanted a wider margin of
safety so eventually the production plane ends up getting set at 850lb.
Probably a good choice because we haven't been seeing Kitfoxes falling apart
in the air. The prototype plane however, cannot be re-registered with a
lower gross or MTOW and eventually you end up buying the very first of a
line of successful planes... But could it be that it is the same plane???
On the other hand he may have decided that he wanted to use the plane to do
aerobatic shows at the various fly-ins he attended. To this end he may have
constructed that particular plane well reinforced for that task and the
higher gross weight reflects that strengthening. A give away to this will
be a much heavier tare weight.
Every homebuilder should recognize that is he is always liable for the
plane. If you go buy a plane someone else built (we both did) and go flying
someday even at say 5000 lb. over gross and the landing gear breaks off
while taxiing off the ramp. Causing you/me a bump on the noggin and a
broken prop and a few other items (We are very lucky) here is the clincher,
the original manufacturer is still liable for what happens to the plane.
That's why Boeing is a Limited liability company. Too bad amateurs can't
build their planes through limited liability companies. Guys who build
planes should realize this when they go to sell their baby. Even if they
sell to a close friend who they know will always fly within safe parameters.
What happens if your friend, the one who bought your pride and joy, decides
he wants a bigger/smaller plane and sells the plane you built to a flight
training unit...make that a poor flight training unit where some green as
grass student spins it in from 10K ft. Guess who is liable for the
accident? The school... There will be arguments. No... The builder. Even
though he didn't have anything to do with the flight in question. The
builder may not even know the plane is in the ownership of a flight school.
He didn't even sell the plane to the flight school but he is still
financially responsible (liable) for the plane. Just try to get insurance
on a plane you built forty years ago an haven't seen in thirty five years!
To add insult to injury let's imagine the student pilot signed a waiver for
the flight school absolving everyone from any responsibility in a possible
crash. Guess what! His remaining relatives have every right to sue the
builder for their loss. So much for waivers.
In my case I bought my plane third hand. It was built by a close friend of
my family who has since died. Now I am the only person left to take on the
responsibility of that plane. When/if I sell the plane that responsibility
goes with it. This is one of the reasons that I preferred to buy my plane
completed. I expect to finish flying before I turn seventy, if I die of a
social disease at the age of a hundred and ten I not only will do very well
for myself but I'd have to carry the burden of financial responsibility for
the plane for an additional forty years. No thanks. A lot of builders know
this and they sell the plane as parts, no registration or have a non-air
force regulation bon fire.
All this financial responsibility stuff aside when you get into a plane as
P.I.C. you owe it to your &ss to make sure the plane is safe to fly, the way
you fly. What I'm getting at is simply because you have a prototype or
close to prototype plane it is in your best interest to compare it to other
Model I Kitfoxes and if you find your plane is for all intents and purposes
the same as the others, then fly it as if it had their (850#) gross weight.
Either way, Mr. Denney is still liable for any accident involving your plane
if his name appears as the builder in the registration.
I'm just wondering out loud here. What if the registration / data plate on
your machine says it was built by the Denney Aircraft Co. Is this now a
certified airplane?? Does it now require annual inspections by an A&P?? Is
Kitfox Aircraft LLC now liable for any accident involving your plane?? Are
you legally allowed to make any changes to the plane?? How would that
effect the operation of your two stroke engine? How would that affect your
insurance?? Remember we live in a world where a woman dumb enough to drop
scalding hot coffee on herself was able to successfully sue McDonalds for
serving coffee... hot. Sheesh!! Hard to figure out which is dumber her or
the court that made the award.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of SkySteve
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:36 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder
Noel,
Do you really mean what you just said? That the builder/manufacturer has
the RIGHT to put whatever weight rating on the plane he wants? And that the
otis is on the pilot to make sure the plane is safe?
OK, I'll bite. Let me tell you a short story: I am the manufacturer of an
airplane. Let's see, what to call my new airplane. Oh, yes, I'll call it a
Kitcoyote. Yea, I really like that name. Now when I build this airplane
and do the engineering on it I find out it can only carry 850# gross weight
(plus a safety factor of 1.5 because I want to be safe). Now I want to
sell a lot of these new Kitcoyotes for my new Kitcoyote Areocraft Company,
so I decide to commit intentional fraud and write down on the weight and
balance that my new plane can carry, say, 5000# gross weight. Yea, that
should sell a lot of planes. You, Noel, purchase my airplane because you
think it would be great to have this new little two seater that can carry
5,000#. Now you load up your wife and about 4,000# of her luggage (you
limit her to only 4,000# because you, too want to be safe) and you try to
fly off on vacation. Of course you don't make it, crash, kill yourself and
your wife and all her !
stuff burns in the fire. Now are you telling me that I have no liability
and no fraud was committed and that you alone as the pilot have the "otis to
make sure your plane is safe? You mean you can't count on me as the
manufacturer at all to be truthful with you since there is "no law that says
you have to fly up to 5,000#". Come on, you don't really believe that, do
you?
When you do a weight and balance on an airplane, any airplane, you don't
empty all the fuel, take out all the gages, radios, etc and weigh the empty
airplane each time do you? No, of course not. You go to the POH just like
the FAA tells you to and you look up the empty weight, add in all the gages,
radios and other stuff, plus fuel, luggage, pilot, passengers, etc and
calculate your weight and balance. You count on the manufacturer to provide
you with factual information to work from.
Do you, as the pilot tear the entire plane apart and check each item it was
built with? Of course not, you count on the manufacturer to be honest with
you that the plane was built right. So how can you say that the
manufacturer has the RIGHT to put whatever weight rating on the plane he
wants. The manufacturer DOES NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT. The manufacturer has the
responsibility to be truthful and honest about what he built. And don't
open the argument that the word Experimental covers all wrong and thereby
allows anyone to commit intentional fraud. It does not. We are all
expected to be honest. We are all expected to not commit fraud.
When there is an airliner crash, the FAA, NTSB and all the attorneys in the
free western world do not wait at the pilot's doorstep if the plane crash
was caused by a default in the aircraft. They go to the manufacturer. If
your logic was correct, they would all go to the pilot because you have
stated that "the otis ...is on the pilot, to make sure your plane is safe".
Yes, the pilot is responsible to make sure the plane is safe, by using the
honest information provided by the manufacturer for those items that the
pilot cannot know or test by not being the manufacturer.
Now, just so we are both on the same page. And just in case your comments
were about something I might have said earlier in this thread, please read
all my comments. Especially the one where I very clearly state, and I
quote, "So, I am confident that all has been presented to me in a fully
disclosed and truthful manner." This final comment seems to have been
missed too many times already.
--------
Steve Wilson
Huntsville, UT
Kitfox I-IV 85DD
912A / 3 Blade Warp Drive
Convertable Nosewheel & Tailwheel
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=170550#170550
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM |
Ken,
I dont think so...
Now, I am a long way from an "expert"...so take this as just one fellas experience,
and not necessarily the norm..and I have never riddin in a series 7...only
the 4's and older.
Airplanes flight characteristic's are equal to the sum of a list of compromises.
ON this particular subject...some of the things I can think of on the list are:
Cruise speed...vs Landing speed
IN other words...set the prop for maximum cruise potential,(max pitch) and even
with the gearbox slowing it down when it is at Rotaxs recommended Idle speed
of 200 rpms or thereabout...it still it putting out a fair amount of thrust...so
Landing short requires alot of pilot technique.
This was Dick was referring to in the previous post with the "slip and plop" description...I
liked that alot...he means crab/slip it in with a high drag attitude
to help slow it down faster and then plop it in..
or...lower the min throttle setting to less than Rotax's min recomendation, and
get familiar with the chattering of the gearbox that this high idle speed is
supposed tom prevent. This way you can keep one hand on the throttle and when
you bring it in...bring the rpms down real low....just so you loose that residual
thrust from the prop....and when you get the airplane on the ground...ride
the brakes and push the throttle back up to get out of your engines particular
"gearbox chatter" rpm range
or.. compromise on the fast cruise and lessen the pitch of the prop so that there
is no thrust or very little at 1900 or 2000 rpms,,,and land it without the
either of the extra techniques referred to above required.
OR...since you are building...install an airbrake like a F-86 or a tomcat and use
it on landing....(this actually might be more viable than comical after considering)
And remember this...I could be wrong.....
After streamlining the struts...really tweaking the rigging and getting the wings
set "just right"...running the prop pitch up to where the engine wont redline
until after about a minute of so at wide open throttle...my Speedster flys
so dang fast I cant hardly tell people about it because they just don't believe
it...Not that this near sonic speed matters to me that much, but I do like the
super economical cruise ...with the engine down around 4700 and the airspeed
over 100
I personally think you have made a good choice..but I am kinda biased..
--------
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=170691#170691
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder |
I missed a point.
If you sell such a plane as a kit you are not the manufacturer of the plane.
The builder is the manufacturer. In your case the kit provider is Denney
Mfg. And the manufacturer may be Dan Denney (SEE my last post). Wearing his
manufacturers building hat, he has the right to decide what the gross weight
for that plane should be. There are however loose guidelines the builder
can use and of course the FAA or licensing authority in your country can
refuse to register a plane on any one of a number of grounds. I doubt they
go over every calculation with a magnifying glass and unless something is
really out of whack like a 500lb plane having a gross of 5000lb MTOW I
suspect you can get just about anything through. You can go today and buy a
kit, any kit, from Kitfox LLC, build it, call it a Hs-arc (Crash
backwards)and register it for 1800lb. on the grounds that the plane, similar
to a Kitfox model III, now has a lower G rating of +-2.
As long as it passes the final inspection and the rate of climb test you're
legal to fly. Where is the fraud? At the same time where is the safety?
Of course when you go to sell the (trusty?)Hs-arc, be prepared to carry the
liability of it for the rest of your days.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of SkySteve
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:36 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder
Noel,
Do you really mean what you just said? That the builder/manufacturer has
the RIGHT to put whatever weight rating on the plane he wants? And that the
otis is on the pilot to make sure the plane is safe?
OK, I'll bite. Let me tell you a short story: I am the manufacturer of an
airplane. Let's see, what to call my new airplane. Oh, yes, I'll call it a
Kitcoyote. Yea, I really like that name. Now when I build this airplane
and do the engineering on it I find out it can only carry 850# gross weight
(plus a safety factor of 1.5 because I want to be safe). Now I want to
sell a lot of these new Kitcoyotes for my new Kitcoyote Areocraft Company,
so I decide to commit intentional fraud and write down on the weight and
balance that my new plane can carry, say, 5000# gross weight. Yea, that
should sell a lot of planes. You, Noel, purchase my airplane because you
think it would be great to have this new little two seater that can carry
5,000#. Now you load up your wife and about 4,000# of her luggage (you
limit her to only 4,000# because you, too want to be safe) and you try to
fly off on vacation. Of course you don't make it, crash, kill yourself and
your wife and all her !
stuff burns in the fire. Now are you telling me that I have no liability
and no fraud was committed and that you alone as the pilot have the "otis to
make sure your plane is safe? You mean you can't count on me as the
manufacturer at all to be truthful with you since there is "no law that says
you have to fly up to 5,000#". Come on, you don't really believe that, do
you?
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: Tricycle Kitfox II - Weight constraints |
> I,m not sure if it applies to the Kitfox but I do know that on the
> Avid when the conversion was made from tail dragger to trike the
> same bungee gear was used by simply reversing sides.
The left gear became right and vice versa. If streamline fairings
have been added to gear they would have to be removed and re-
installed. The current forward gear mount is not used and the mount
under the lift strut is used. Bungees work as per original. I
think I measured my model 2, and the gear reversal was possible, but
I love the tail dragger config.
Reversing the gear also puts the mains in the proper cg location.
Jim Corner
Model 2, 582,. Ivo med !FA, 1100 hrs
Model 5 under construction
Calgary, AB
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM |
Ken, as was previously posted, the recommended idle speed is around
2000rpm, the same for my Subaru setup. The only reason for the high
idle rpm is to smooth out the tortional vibration pulses from the prop
and keep the gearbox from hammering for long periods. However, landing
rpms are much different and can be easily backed off to 1500 or less
(about 500 prop rpm depending on ratio) to get a slow prop speed for
short final and landing only. One poster said his engine kept dying at
the lower rpms, but I believe that he might be dealing with a mixture
problem, probably too rich that is causing the engine to die at the
lower rpm. The Kitfox, whether a model 1 or 7 is a good short field
airplane, but prop speed is important so that excessive float isn't
encountered. I idle mine about 2200rpm, but the idle stop is set for
1400 for landing. The 912 shouldn't be very much different and I'm sure
others will chime in soon with their setups.
The 912S is a good package, and probably the best choice out there for
the Kitfox. What probably keeps most people from going with it is only
the price.
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but
progress."
- Joseph Joubert
----- Original Message -----
From: Kenneth and Alice Jones
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM
I'm confused about this subject. I'm a Series 7 builder. I have a
912S not yet installed. I thought I was building a STOL aircraft that
could land short. I knew the engine idle speed was high, but I thought
the gear box reduced the prop speed so that it was not providing thrust
at idle speed. These messages suggest that is not correct. Do I have
to change to another engine to get STOL landings?
Ken Jones
Waynesboro, PA
Series 7 builder
----- Original Message -----
From: Catz631@aol.com
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM
Don, Don't feel like the 'Lone Ranger" I too have been having fits
landing my Kitfox like a normal taildragger.In fact when I first bought
the plane the engine quit on me three times on final (3 different
flights) and the airplane landed very nicely. Well, like a dummy I
adjusted the idle back up so it wouldn't happen again and like you, it
wouldn't land cause you can't get the power back far enough! So now I
have it adjusted as it was and make the rpm part of my landing scan. As
the former owner said it's called "slip and plop" Nature of the beast I
guess. (with a Rotax 912 anyway-weird engine)
Dick Maddux
Fox4-1200
Rotax 912UL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
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 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: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM |
I like Jeff's idea about using the F4 drag chute...
do not archive
> OR...since you are building...install an airbrake like a F-86 or a tomcat
> and use it on landing....(this actually might be more viable than comical
> after considering)
> --------
> Don G.
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: | Compass Question |
Hi Andy
Check the archives for "compass swings" There should be a nice easy to
follow set of instructions there.
Do not archive.
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
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andy Fultz
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 3:28 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Compass Question
I have just acquired a PAI-700 vertical card compass from a friend. He
had no documentation with this unit. Do any of you possibly know what the
proper procedure is for calibrating this compass? I went to PAI's website
hoping to find the info there, but there is no tech info at all on the
website. Thanks
Andy F.
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: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM |
At 09:27 AM 3/18/2008, you wrote:
>I thought I was building a STOL aircraft that could land short. . .
>. Do I have to change to another engine to get STOL landings?
First, there is no problem with the 912. Most Kitfoxes have
them and some of the ones that do can land reliably in less than
100'. That said, my Kitfox IV with a 582 is a very difficult plane to
land short. Minimum sink is at 50 mph indicated. (This from my gross
weight flight test data.) At that weight my stall is 40-45 mph
indicated. Thus, unlike a full-flaps Cessna the only way to really
increase sink is to point it down hill and go fast, (lots of drag,)
or to slip like mad. Unfortunately, in either case you end up fast in
the flare and you float. (I haven't the courage to slip close to
stall speed near the ground.) So how do these guys land short?
First they drag it in as low and slow as they dare. (Speed
is based on gust factor, etc.) When I say low, I mean 2-3 feet over
the terrain. When they get near the threshold they pull power and
simultaneously rotate. Ideally the mains touch the ground with little
vertical velocity just as the wings stall. When the mains touch they
push a little and brake hard. Then begins the game of braking as hard
as you can without nosing over while using elevator to control
attitude. Initially you push forward on the stick to plant the tires
(reduce AoA) to get traction. Then as you mash the brakes you pull
the stick back, maintaining attitude. You apply as much brake as the
elevator will stand. As the plane slows and before the elevator
looses effectiveness you reduce the braking just enough to get the
tail to drop. This moves the CG back and puts more down-force on the
tires. (Don't do it too soon or the wing's lift will offset your
gains.) Ideally the tailwheel kisses the ground just as you stop. All
of this happens in about 3-5 seconds.
Compare this with the trike 152. Full flaps, 5mph over
stall, (I think about 50,) and the plane's sinking like a rock. Just
before touchdown you rotate to buffet. (You do this to mitigate the
impact a little, but mostly to keep the nose wheel from hitting too
hard.) The impact is incredible, but the spring gear soaks it up.
Upon impact pull full back stick and full brakes. (No skidding.)
Doing this you can land a 150 incredibly short. (I don't remember the
numbers, but it was impressive, something like 100'.) More
importantly just about anybody can do it. I learned during PPL
training. Compare this to a couple hundred hours in the Kitfox and I
still can't land short EVERY TIME.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: | Gary Buchanan, Flying Close Formation with King |
Air
At 07:57 PM 3/17/2008, you wrote:
>Don't those guys get any training in the effects of downwash??
They do, but like many pilots they believe physics can be
overcome by sufficient levels of skill.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder |
At 08:06 PM 3/17/2008, you wrote:
>Do you really mean what you just said? That the
>builder/manufacturer has the RIGHT to put whatever weight rating on
>the plane he wants? And that the otis is on the pilot to make sure
>the plane is safe?
Unfortunately Noel's right. The builder has the LEGAL right
to put any gross weight he wants. (The Lancair guys increase their
gross all the time, sometimes by remarkable amounts.) Your
moral/ethical arguments stand, of course, but Denney, knowing how the
aircraft was designed/built/tested could well have put a 1050# gross
on an 850# gross airframe, and still been "safe".
Guy Buchanan
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: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder |
What Dave said...except for the affidavit... Inquiring minds want to
know... I can't believe I wrote that!
Do not archive this one.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dave
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 5:51 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder
Steve,
> Now, just so we are both on the same page. And just in case your comments
were about something I might have said earlier in this thread, please read
all my comments. Especially the one where I very clearly state, and I quote,
"So, I am confident that all has been presented to me in a fully disclosed
and truthful manner." This final comment seems to have been missed too many
times already.
>
>
You can believe and say that all you like and it is possible that Dan Denney
did mods that made your Kitfox 1 different than other Kitfox 1s with a gross
weight of 850. They did weight around 400 lbs empty you know. Also the VNE
of the Model 1 was 100 mph and with your 912 I would venture to guess that
you will surpass that. Model 1 cruise speed as about 75 mph so your
cruise will likely be closer to the vne now and something to think about in
rough air.
I am surprised that no one else is voicing their thoughts on this matter
already. If there was mods done then it would be of great benefit for
others to be able to do these structural mods on their Early models as well
if practical. And if there were no mods done then it is good for you to
know that the builder might have just set a higher gross weight on a Model
1 and that is up to you to decide. You are 25% over gross weight now from
the original design of the Model 1 and definitely are in the test pilot
stages if not proven other wise.
> So, I am confident that all has been presented to me in a fully disclosed
and truthful manner." This final comment seems to have been missed too many
times already.
Better get a affidavit from Dan Denney on this matter
--------
Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada
Flying Videos and Kitfox Info
http://www.cfisher.com/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=170567#170567
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: | Kitfox-List:OT - Onus or Otis? |
Lynn:
The following said tongue firmly planted in cheek.
???? Speak American... English doesn't look good on you. J
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Onus or Otis?
If I only had a nickel for every time I had to bite my tongue over
some of the wording, misspelling, punctuation, etc., of some of the
posts I've read here, and I know I've added a few myself. Sometimes I
wonder how some of us got to be pilots...thank God the knowledge test
didn't require proper English, or writing skills. Wait a
minute....maybe if it did, they'd weed out a few more pilots. : )
Lynn Matteson
Grass Lake, Michigan
Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
flying w/480+ hrs
do not archive
On Mar 18, 2008, at 1:49 AM, Rexinator wrote:
>
> Noel and Steve,
> I respect you both for what you have contributed here, please
> believe that. I wish I could speak from as much life experience as
> even the average person on this list. I hope our discussions serve
> all towards increasing understanding of every aspect of owning a
> Kitfox. Without personal conflicts would be preferable. We should
> all know it is trickier to debate subjects via email than in person
> and still avoid provoking misunderstandings.
> That said, shouldn't it be: onus not Otis? This is a minor detail
> to be sure. We all have errors and misconceptions, I know I do and
> have made similar errors. I hope someone will point them out to me
> when I make one again.
> I'm doing this now because I read a great little article here:
> http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/str/4.html
> It kinda got me fired up to try to correct errors when I see them.
> It'll subside soon and I'll get back to letting these little
> nitpicks go without comment. Otherwise good points of discussion.
>
> --
> Rex Hefferan
> SE Colorado / K-II / 582-C / still waiting repairs
>
>
> Noel Loveys wrote:
>
>> The builder is the manufacturer of the plane... as such he has the
>> right to put whatever weight rating on the plane he wants. How can
>> that be fraud. If you wnt to be totally safe check the
>> construction of your plane against other model I. There is no law
>> that I know of that says you have to fly up to 1050. If on the
>> other hand you find the pass throughs have been beefed up, The
>> spars have additional internal support Etc. Etc then feel safe to
>> fly to Mr. Denney's spec. The Otis, as I see it, is on you, the
>> pilot, to make sure your plane is safe.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM |
> So how do these guys land short? First they drag it in as low and slow as they
dare. (Speed is based on gust factor, etc.) When I say low, I mean 2-3 feet
over the terrain. When they get near the threshold they pull power and simultaneously
rotate.
This seems to me like a great example of why I think you have to be real careful
about making generalizations based on personal experience. From this description,
my model IV is a completely different animal. Like most of the people on
this thread, I had to tweak my idle setting to get it low enough to limit excessive
float on flare. But, now that I have it dialed in, its not an issue at
all. Not to say that I land short reliably but I blame that on my piloting skills.
I say this because I have managed to land quite short on occasion with nothing
more than setting up the approach well and managing my air speed properly.
--------
Luis Rodriguez
Model IV 1200
Rotax 912UL
Flying Weekly
Laurens, SC (34A)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=170726#170726
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 |
|
| Subject: | OT popular misconceptions |
These links are to articles on the Science Hobbyist web site I happened
upon recently. It got me to thinking about all manner of misconceptions
and errors found almost everywhere. I think we could come up with an
similar Aviation oriented article. :-)
The site is run by a Electrical Engineer and has lots of interesting
pages and links. Some could even be of general benefit to us Kitfoxers.
http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html:
http://amasci.com/miscon/nitpik.html
and of course as listed before,
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/str/4.html
Do Not Achive
--
Rex Hefferan
SE Colorado / K-II / 582-C / still waiting repairs
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: OT popular misconceptions |
If I resided in a glass house, I would probably look up the proper use of "A" and
"AN".
My biggest problem is making my fingers say what my mind is thinking.
Louie
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=170761#170761
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 |
|
Lynn,
Here's a URL
(http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airmen_certification/english_profi
ciency/) that says, "The ability to read, speak, write, and understand
English is already a U.S. regulatory eligibility requirement." To operate
internationally with a US pilot certificate of Private, Commercial, or ATP,
beginning March 5, 2008 we now are required to have that "English
proficient" endorsement on our pilot certificates. The US has filed a
difference with ICAO to extend that requirement to March 5, 2009.
I just threw this in for humor, and to show the irony that exists in
aviation. It is not meant to nitpick or sharpshoot.
John Hart
Wilburton, OK
Model IV
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Onus or Otis?
If I only had a nickel for every time I had to bite my tongue over
some of the wording, misspelling, punctuation, etc., of some of the
posts I've read here, and I know I've added a few myself. Sometimes I
wonder how some of us got to be pilots...thank God the knowledge test
didn't require proper English, or writing skills. Wait a
minute....maybe if it did, they'd weed out a few more pilots. : )
Lynn Matteson
Grass Lake, Michigan
Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
flying w/480+ hrs
do not archive
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: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM |
Thanks for your input guys. The conclusion I've reached, as Dick Maddux
said, the 912 is a weird engine. I find it hard to understand that the
engineers would design an aircraft engine that cannot idle on a landing
approach with no added thrust. If I remember right all the Lycomings I
used to fly would idle so slow the props would actually create a little
drag. I'm really annoyed with myself that I didn't think to research
this subject more before I made the engine purchase decision. Yet we
all know there are a lot of new light sport aircraft on the market using
the Rotax 912 engines. So I wonder if I'm being overly concerned. Is
this really an important issue? Do all the new light sport's have this
problem? I've been planning on taking a biannual flight review next
month. I think I'll make sure to do it on a light sport using the Rotax
912 to see for myself.
In any case the conclusion seems to be that the only way to achieve low
approach speeds with a Rotax 912 is to slip hard or accept gearbox
chatter at low idle settings during the approach.
Ken Jones
Series 7 builder
----- Original Message -----
From: fox5flyer
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM
Ken, as was previously posted, the recommended idle speed is around
2000rpm, the same for my Subaru setup. The only reason for the high
idle rpm is to smooth out the tortional vibration pulses from the prop
and keep the gearbox from hammering for long periods. However, landing
rpms are much different and can be easily backed off to 1500 or less
(about 500 prop rpm depending on ratio) to get a slow prop speed for
short final and landing only. One poster said his engine kept dying at
the lower rpms, but I believe that he might be dealing with a mixture
problem, probably too rich that is causing the engine to die at the
lower rpm. The Kitfox, whether a model 1 or 7 is a good short field
airplane, but prop speed is important so that excessive float isn't
encountered. I idle mine about 2200rpm, but the idle stop is set for
1400 for landing. The 912 shouldn't be very much different and I'm sure
others will chime in soon with their setups.
The 912S is a good package, and probably the best choice out there for
the Kitfox. What probably keeps most people from going with it is only
the price.
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but
progress."
- Joseph Joubert
----- Original Message -----
From: Kenneth and Alice Jones
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM
I'm confused about this subject. I'm a Series 7 builder. I have a
912S not yet installed. I thought I was building a STOL aircraft that
could land short. I knew the engine idle speed was high, but I thought
the gear box reduced the prop speed so that it was not providing thrust
at idle speed. These messages suggest that is not correct. Do I have
to change to another engine to get STOL landings?
Ken Jones
Waynesboro, PA
Series 7 builder
----- Original Message -----
From: Catz631@aol.com
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM
Don, Don't feel like the 'Lone Ranger" I too have been having fits
landing my Kitfox like a normal taildragger.In fact when I first bought
the plane the engine quit on me three times on final (3 different
flights) and the airplane landed very nicely. Well, like a dummy I
adjusted the idle back up so it wouldn't happen again and like you, it
wouldn't land cause you can't get the power back far enough! So now I
have it adjusted as it was and make the rpm part of my landing scan. As
the former owner said it's called "slip and plop" Nature of the beast I
guess. (with a Rotax 912 anyway-weird engine)
Dick Maddux
Fox4-1200
Rotax 912UL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
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 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: OT popular misconceptions |
Like I said "tell me when I make one". I should have proof read my post
better as I tend to edit my text more than once and changes sometimes
leave an error like that.
Thanks
Do Not Archive
vetdrem wrote:
>
>If I resided in a glass house, I would probably look up the proper use of "A"
and "AN".
>
>My biggest problem is making my fingers say what my mind is thinking.
>
>Louie
>
>
>
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: | OT popular misconceptions |
Rex
Thanks for the links Of the five basic misconceptions I know I have one...
I'm not saying which one. But it does bring to mind that sometimes we
aren't always talking about the same thing....Sort of.
Some of the guy's conceptions on electricity I do have to question though.
Light and electricity are both areas where you use the model (wave or
particle) that works for what you want to show.
Noel
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rexinator
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 5:58 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: OT popular misconceptions
These links are to articles on the Science Hobbyist web site I happened
upon recently. It got me to thinking about all manner of misconceptions
and errors found almost everywhere. I think we could come up with an
similar Aviation oriented article. :-)
The site is run by a Electrical Engineer and has lots of interesting
pages and links. Some could even be of general benefit to us Kitfoxers.
http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html:
http://amasci.com/miscon/nitpik.html
and of course as listed before,
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/str/4.html
Do Not Achive
--
Rex Hefferan
SE Colorado / K-II / 582-C / still waiting repairs
Message 40
| 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: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM |
> In any case the conclusion seems to be that the only way to achieve low approach
speeds with a Rotax 912 is to slip hard or accept gearbox chatter at low
idle settings during the approach.
I do think that you're getting worked up over nothing. I can slow my 912UL powered
Model IV down just fine with zero gearbox chatter. In fact, if I setup my
approach the way I like it, I leave in a touch of power all the way to short final.
I wait till I'm over the fence before I bring power all the way out and
then I have to let the nose drop quite a bit to keep the airspeed up or I'll drop
like a rock.
--------
Luis Rodriguez
Model IV 1200
Rotax 912UL
Flying Weekly
Laurens, SC (34A)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=170818#170818
Message 41
| 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: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM |
Ken sez:
> The conclusion I've reached, as Dick Maddux said, the 912
> is a weird engine.
There's nothing weird about it, Ken. On my Model IV-1200 I used a 912S with Ivo
medium prop with in-flight adjustable hub. Mine would idle beautifully at 1400
RPM and I had no problem with float.
> If I remember right all the Lycomings I used to fly would idle
> so slow the props would actually create a little drag.
Mine would do that with no trouble. I would flatten the blades out to high-RPM,
pull the throttle to idle, and I could literally feel the deceleration. It
was like putting the brakes on.
> I'm really annoyed with myself that I didn't think to
> research this subject more before I made the engine
> purchase decision.
In my opinion you've purchased the best engine available in its class. I'll be
putting another one on my new Series 6 when the time comes.
> ...the conclusion seems to be that the only way to achieve
> low approach speeds with a Rotax 912 is to slip hard or
> accept gearbox chatter at low idle settings during the approach.
That was not my experience at all. Although I had my ground idle set at 1400,
on short final with the throttle closed it would run a bit higher, but the ability
to flatten out the prop allowed me to control the thrust precisely.
Mike G.
N728KF
Phoenix, AZ
Message 42
| 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: | Homebuilders special tailwheel swap |
I have the original Maule tailwheel on my model 2. I purchased a
Homebuilders tailwheel from Aircraft Spruce and I'm going to a bearing
supply shop tomorrow to buy bearings. I've checked the archives for any
details to prepare myself better to present my problem. I'll be taking
the new tailwheel with me with the included bearing still installed
since I don't have the proper tools to remove them. I want to replace
them with better bearings sized to fit the 0.5 inch axle. Has anyone
pressed or pulled these bearings out? What tools would I need? Perhaps
the bearing shop will offer R&R services. I may stop at the local Harbor
Freight Tools for an Arbor press and other appropriate tools anyway. Any
advice would be appreciated.
I plan to document the swap for a future Kitfox Wiki article.
--
Rex Hefferan
SE Colorado / K-II / 582-C / still waiting repairs
Message 43
| 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: Rotax 912 80HP Idle RPM |
Ken....I absolutely love this engine...If the FAA would allow it...I would put
one on the front of My Luscombe and ditch the Continental in a heart beat.
I got my first rating in the 70's and have time behind alot of recips from 4's
and 6's , radials to v-12's and despite it nuances, the 912 is in my opinion
the best engine for its class I have ever operated...takes throttle like motorcycle,
runs the smoothest of anything this side of a turbine, and burns so little
fuel. I kinda miss the brakeing effect of a "regular engine when you pull
the throttle back...but I wouldn't trade it because of all the other great features.
And I have only about 80 hours behind it...probably made up my mind in the first
10
--------
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=170826#170826
Message 44
| 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: | Compass Question |
Thanks Steve. Sounds like the vertical card compas I have swings no
differently than most others. That's what I was wondering. Thanks.
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Sbennett3@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:14 AM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Compass Question
Andy, After you install the compass in your plane,Get a brass screwdriver
Line it up on either a runway, or a compass row and swing it. If you have a
runway 2/20. And the compass reads 030. Swing the airplane around, face 200
and see if its still 10 deg off. split the difference between. You should
also swing it for East/West. Hope this helps. Steve Bennett
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
Message 45
| 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 |
|
Hi KitFoxers!
I have a quick question, and I apologize in advance for not going
directly to the archives for this, as I'm sure this info is in the
archives somewhere.
Seems as though my gas caps are leaking, and the gaskets need to be
replaced. My question is: Where might I be able to find replacement
gaskets?
Thanks in advance!
Nick Scholtes
Message 46
| 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: Sky King.... |
Hi Don and Noel,
I guess I remember watching the reruns since I saw them in the early 60's.
I really enjoyed them too, along with watching The Roy Rogers, Dale Evans Show,
and Marx the Magic Man on Saturdays. That's when I remember we only had 3 or
4 channels to choose from. Then after watching those shows early on Saturdays,
it was outside for the rest of the day.
I now live in Victorville, which is right next to Apple Valley, where many of the
Sky King stories were centered. The old Apple Valley Airport is no more, but
for a long time you could still make out the building locations and drive on
the old crumbling asphalt of the runway. The Apple Valley Inn still exists,
which was just across Hwy 18 from the old airport. I'm glad to hear Noel got
to meet "Penny". It's neat to meet some of our old heroes and heroines.
In the 80's I used to go to the same family doctor as Roy Rogers did, and one day
met him in the hallway with my younger children. What a nice man. I'll never
forget that.
Happy Flying!
--------
Kitfox II, 582, Tundra Tires,
rusty pilot.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=170845#170845
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! --
|