Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:14 AM - RUST! (jlfernan)
2. 06:03 AM - dual brake problems (charles cook)
3. 06:48 AM - Re: 582 fuel pump (Tom Jones)
4. 07:35 AM - Re: 1/8 inch fuel line clamps (mikeperkins)
5. 08:36 AM - Re: RUST! (SUE MICHAELS)
6. 12:25 PM - Re: Re: 582 fuel pump (patrick reilly)
7. 12:33 PM - Re: 582 fuel pump (patrick reilly)
8. 01:24 PM - Re: 582 fuel pump (Tom Jones)
9. 04:20 PM - Re: 582 fuel pump (wingman)
10. 05:47 PM - Re: Re: 582 fuel pump (patrick reilly)
11. 05:55 PM - Re: Re: Full PPL vs Sport Pilot LicenseFull PPL vs Sport Pilot Lice (Noel Loveys)
12. 06:20 PM - Re: Re: 582 RPM question. (Noel Loveys)
13. 06:24 PM - Re: Re: 582 RPM question. (Noel Loveys)
14. 06:31 PM - Re: Re: skis (R.D.(Ron) Leclerc)
15. 06:41 PM - Re: Re: skis (Kitfoxkirk)
16. 06:41 PM - Re: 503 Engine Fogging-OOPS (Noel Loveys)
17. 07:02 PM - Re: Re: skis (R.D.(Ron) Leclerc)
18. 07:31 PM - Re: Re: skis (Kitfoxkirk)
19. 11:12 PM - Everybody ground loops? (John Allen)
20. 11:38 PM - Re: Everybody ground loops? (gary.algate@sandvik.com)
21. 11:38 PM - Re: Everybody ground loops? (gary.algate@sandvik.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
This morning I was looking over my kit, thinking about what I was going to do next
when I noticed an area about four inches wide, near the center of the elevators,
where the powdercoat seemed bubbled. Tapping it with my fingernail, it
sounded hollow. I chipped at it with my nail and sure enough, the powdercoat came
off and revealed RUST! Thick rust! This was not my doing. I guess something
was done wrong during the powdercoat process. Not to mention the work I put
in attaching the ribs and foam end caps. I received my kit on August 1st, too
quickly I think for even the humidity in Miami to have caused this. I'll be emailing
Kitfox also, although I don't expect a reply for a few days since they
are closed for the holidays. Check your parts carefully in case someone else
has this problem you can catch it before you cover anything.
(http://imageshack.us) (http://imageshack.us)
--------
Jorge Fernandez
Supersport
Fuselage/Forward Controls
http://websites.expercraft.com/jlfernan/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221763#221763
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: | dual brake problems |
Matco has a service bulletin on how to fix this "lock- up" -problem. It i
s a simple fix and much cheaper than buying new master assembly. Go to thei
r website and look for service bulletin. It is a PDF file.
Charles Cook
N363KF -582
ATL=0A=0A=0A
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: 582 fuel pump |
> Kitfoxers, Awhile back someone posted a note to make sure the vent hole on the
fuel pump was down when you mounted the pump. I often feel like I am going blind,
and maybe I am. I can't find a vent hole. Anybody out there that can tell
me where the vent hole on that Mikuni pump is supposed to be?
>
> Pat Reilly
Pat, attached are a couple pulse pump pictures. One with a brass pulse line fitting.
The tiny vent hole is in the center of the square brass fitting.
The other is mounted horizontally on my Kitfox motor mount. The pulse line fitting
is part of the pump casting. The hole is in the same place in the fitting.
The one with the brass fitting is a genuine Rotax part, I think. It came with
my engine. I had it mounted on the fire wall with a 22 inch pulse line. It pumped
fine but leaked oil out the vent hole. I thought the pump was faulty.
I purchased the cast fitting pump from CPS. It did the same thing. I moved the
mount closer to the engine pulse port as shown in the picture with a six inch
pulse line and the leaking stopped.
The first pump that I received from CPS did not have the vent hole. He said they
drill the holes themselves and that one must have been missed.
The aircraft engine version of the Mukunie pulse pumps are the only ones that have
the vent hole. Pumps for snowmobiles etc. do not. Some of those have found
their way onto aircraft.
--------
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=221782#221782
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/pulse_pump_brass_144.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/pulse_pump_cast_828.jpg
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 1/8 inch fuel line clamps |
Two wraps of safety wire, twist the ends four or five turns. Works on all types
of tubing - Tygon, polyurethane, vinyl. Kitfox-proven under the cowl for 15 years,
never a failure; same technique used on Voyager fuel lines.
- Mike Perkins
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221783#221783
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 |
|
Airframe rust issues with my Sport. After two repair failures found easy so
lution. 2 years no sign of rust and I live-near the Beach. Contact me if
you need info.=0A=0AGeorge=0ASport Model and painting=0A=0Ado not archive
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: jlfernan <jlfernan@
bellsouth.net>=0ATo: kitfox-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, December 30
, 2008 2:12:50 AM=0ASubject: Kitfox-List: RUST!=0A=0A--> Kitfox-List messag
e posted by: "jlfernan" <jlfernan@bellsouth.net>=0A=0AThis morning I was lo
oking over my kit, thinking about what I was going to do next when I notice
d an area about four inches wide, near the center of the elevators, where t
he powdercoat seemed bubbled. Tapping it with my fingernail, it sounded hol
low. I chipped at it with my nail and sure enough, the powdercoat came off
and revealed RUST! Thick rust!- This was not my doing. I guess something
was done wrong during the powdercoat process. Not to mention the work I put
in attaching the ribs and foam end caps. I received my kit on August 1st,
too quickly I think for even the humidity in Miami to have caused this. I'l
l be emailing Kitfox also, although I don't expect a reply for a few days s
ince they are closed for the holidays. Check your parts carefully in case s
omeone else has this problem you can catch it before you cover anything.=0A
(http://imageshack.us) (http://imageshack.us)=0A=0A--------=0AJorge Fernand
ez=0ASupersport=0AFuselage/Forward Controls=0Ahttp://websites.expercraft.co
m/jlfernan/=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.m
-=- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Drall
======================
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 582 fuel pump |
Tom=2C Thank you very much for the photos. My brass fitting has the vent ho
le in it. That is a very small hole. I guess it doesn't matter how the pump
is oriented on the firewall=2C the hole is dead center no matter how you r
otate the pump. Why would there be an oil leak with a longer vacumn line?
Pat Reilly
Mod 3 582 Rebuild
Rockford=2C IL> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: 582 fuel pump> From: nahsikhs@ell
tel.net> Date: Tue=2C 30 Dec 2008 06:48:00 -0800> To: kitfox-list@matronics
>> > > > Kitfoxers=2C Awhile back someone posted a note to make sure the ve
nt hole on the fuel pump was down when you mounted the pump. I often feel l
ike I am going blind=2C and maybe I am. I can't find a vent hole. Anybody o
ut there that can tell me where the vent hole on that Mikuni pump is suppos
ed to be? > > > > Pat Reilly > > > Pat=2C attached are a couple pulse pump
pictures. One with a brass pulse line fitting. The tiny vent hole is in the
center of the square brass fitting. > > The other is mounted horizontally
on my Kitfox motor mount. The pulse line fitting is part of the pump castin
g. The hole is in the same place in the fitting.> > The one with the brass
fitting is a genuine Rotax part=2C I think. It came with my engine. I had i
t mounted on the fire wall with a 22 inch pulse line. It pumped fine but le
aked oil out the vent hole. I thought the pump was faulty.> > I purchased t
he cast fitting pump from CPS. It did the same thing. I moved the mount clo
ser to the engine pulse port as shown in the picture with a six inch pulse
line and the leaking stopped.> > The first pump that I received from CPS di
d not have the vent hole. He said they drill the holes themselves and that
one must have been missed.> > The aircraft engine version of the Mukunie pu
lse pumps are the only ones that have the vent hole. Pumps for snowmobiles
etc. do not. Some of those have found their way onto aircraft.> > -------->
Tom Jones> Classic IV> 503 Rotax=2C 72 inch Two blade Warp> Ellensburg=2C
WA> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/vie
wtopic.php?p=221782#221782> > > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matron
ics.com//files/pulse_pump_brass_144.jpg> http://forums.matronics.com//files
=> > >
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 |
|
Guy=2C Thanks for the info. I'm mounting mine on the firewall also. Tom Jon
es sent pictures=2C I have a vent hole in the brass fitting same as his. Ma
n that hole is small.
Pat Reilly
Mod 3 582 Rebuild
Rockford=2C IL
nn@nethere.comSubject: Re: Kitfox-List: 582 fuel pumpAt 04:16 PM 12/29/2008
=2C you wrote:
Kitfoxers=2C Awhile back someone posted a note to make sure the vent hole o
n the fuel pump was down when you mounted the pump. I often feel like I am
going blind=2C and maybe I am. I can't find a vent hole. Anybody out there
that can tell me where the vent hole on that Mikuni pump is supposed to be?
Pat=2C Personally I think it should be on the bottom of the casting
=2C since I mount mine vertically. However it's actually in the brass elbow
where the pulse line attaches. This means the pump is supposed to be mount
ed flat=2C with the logo up. Who does that? Some day I'll mic the existing
hole=2C replace the elbow=2C and drill a new one the same size in the casti
ng. Right now I suspect my pulse chamber is constantly 1/2 full of fuel/oil
/whatever.
Guy BuchananSan Diego=2C CAK-IV/1200 w/ 582 C-box & Warp 3 blade100% and fl
ying thanks mostly to Bob Ducar
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: 582 fuel pump |
> Why would there be an oil leak with a longer vacumn line?
Thats a good question. I asked a mechanic at CPS but he deflected that question.
I have a theory why. The longer pulse line allows for the larger amount of
air in that line to compress too easily. This allows fuel to work its way through
the line.
Another Kitfox owner had the same problem with a 503 that he cured with a shorter
pulse line so it is confirmed in my mind that the too long pulse line is one
thing that can cause the problem of fuel working its way into the pump. Since
I installed the shorter pulse line the pump has not leaked one drop in about
55 hours flight time. My original pump instillation with the 22 inch line was
per the Skystar Builder's manual and sloped up hill all the way to the pump.
The Rotax directive for the fuel pump "Weep hole" in aircraft installations says
the hole is to prevent a hydraulic lock in the pump in a case where the owner
installs the pump incorrectly. here's a link to a CPS maintenance article that
discusses the weep hole.
http://www.800-airwolf.com/pdffiles/ARTICLES/part41.pdf
I would say the long pulse line was an incorrect installation and the weep hole
may have saved my bacon. I flew about 10 hours with the original installation.
I fastened a catch cup under the pump and it was catching about one to two
ounces per hour.
By the way, the pulse port on a 503 is under the front cylinder, thus my long pulse
line with the pump mount on the fire wall. The 582 pulse port is under the
rear cylinder so it is easier to find a mounting location with a shorter pulse
line, I think.
--------
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=221827#221827
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: 582 fuel pump |
I think that if one would use a soft fuel line as a pulse line, the tube would
collapse and produce less energy to the membranes of the fuel pump.
I suggest that great care is taken when installing a pulse line.
To ensure that it will handle the vacuum pressure produced by the engine.
--------
Kitfox IV 1200
Rotax 912 ULS
Rigging full lotus floats at the moment
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221842#221842
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: 582 fuel pump |
I'm using 1/4" reinforced rubber gas line. It is pretty stiff stuff. That i
s what the previous owner had on the engine. What line is recommended=2C an
d is there a maximum length?
Pat Reilly
Mod 3 582 Rebuild
Rockford=2C IL> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: 582 fuel pump> From: wingman5507@
gmail.com> Date: Tue=2C 30 Dec 2008 16:19:34 -0800> To: kitfox-list@matroni
om>> > I think that if one would use a soft fuel line as a pulse line=2C th
e tube would collapse and produce less energy to the membranes of the fuel
pump.> I suggest that great care is taken when installing a pulse line.> To
ensure that it will handle the vacuum pressure produced by the engine.> >
--------> Kitfox IV 1200> Rotax 912 ULS> Rigging full lotus floats at the m
oment> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/
=====> > >
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: Full PPL vs Sport Pilot LicenseFull PPL vs Sport |
Pilot Lice
I think it's a matter of, to thine own a$$ be true. In this particular case
we are talking about the duffs of the FAA top administrators. If they
disallowed a person to fly under one set of rules and then allowed the same
guy to fly under another set of rules what would happen if the guy had an
accident attributed to poor health... I expect there would a few new faces
in FAA top offices. This will only have any effect on the flying public for
a few years as LSA becomes settled then everyone will switch over before a
medical will be due.
What I would like to see on this side of the border (cold, now white), is a
national consistency in medical wellness for driving a car... Then we could
push for DL medicals for our PP-UL and PP-Rec.
Noel
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Brennan
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 12:52 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Full PPL vs Sport Pilot LicenseFull PPL vs
Sport Pilot Lice
Excellent story Dick, and with a happy ending due to your diligence and
foresight.
Your friends with skin cancer and the "equally small matter" are now
unfortunately SOL (Sh*t Outa Luck) if their medical was denied, they can
never fly as a Sport Pilot or anyway else apparently. Unless of course they
were denied a class 1 or 2 and can still pass a class 3. If they do that
asap and let the class 3 expire they are good to fly for life, or as long as
they deem they are capable.
Sorry for repeating the rules as I understand them in several posts - still
trying to get my head around the illogic of it all. But for smart guys there
are loopholes - this is good!
Bob Brennan - N717GB
ELSA Repairman, inspection rated
1991 UK Model 2 ELSA Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Catz631@aol.com
Sent: 28 December 2008 10:07 am
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Full PPL vs Sport Pilot LicenseFull PPL vs
Sport Pilot Lice
Bob,
I too let my medical lapse this summer. I was elated ! At last I can pretty
much get treated for any malady that might come along at my age and stay
flying under sport pilot medical rules. (within reason of course) I had a
stint put in about 6 years ago while I was still flying for my airline.
Every year I would have a stress test in order to keep my special issuance
medical (a good thing) Every year I would send in 7 lbs of material to the
FAA. Every year I would get a letter back from the FAA wanting 9 lbs of
paper work and because of various conditions (many I don't even have) either
go bury myself or send in the paper work. If I didn't send in the additional
stuff ,then consider myself null and void. I decided that I had had enough
of the threatening letters so I let it lapse Yipppeeeee ! After having a
friend of mine denied his medical for skin cancer and another for an equally
small matter, I decided I will just fly my Kitfox around and forego non LSA
aircraft. I can still instruct,give reviews,tail dragger
instruction,instrument training, etc if I want to. I just have to instruct a
pilot with a valid medical.
So for me this was a good thing ! I never thought I would say this as
getting a new first class medical every 6 months was paramount in keeping my
job and I would get a wee bit of "white coat " syndrome every time I went
to the doctors office. But now I am calm in my doctors office knowing that
if he finds something I can be treated and still fly ! (again within reason)
Dick
Maddux
Pensacola,Fl
_____
Don't be the last to know> for the latest news that will have people
talking.
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronhref="http
://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 582 RPM question. |
Wrap the impulse pick up wire around both the ignition wires from either
cylinder. That way the Tiny Tach will accurately read the mag drop on both
cylinders.
Noel
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marco Menezes
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: 582 RPM question.
I'd leave it in Andrew, unless you've got something else you're dying to put
in the vacant hole. Here's why: Tiny tach is accurate but because it reads
ignition impulses from one ignition wire only, it can't tell you much about
how your other CDI module is performing. While the steam gauge may be
innacurate, it will show relative difference between CDI 1 and 2 when you do
your run-up. At least that's my personal rationalization for keeping the
old, inaccurate tach.
What i'd really like is a truly accurate 2-stroke rpm gauge with inputs from
both CDI modules.
Marco Menezes N99KX
Model 2 582-90 C-Box 3:1 w/clutch
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: 582 RPM question. |
You bring up a good point... The EGT gauges are not calibrated at all. To
me that means I run my engine so I get nice tan plugs. Then and only then I
will make readings on the EGT gauges. Then if I see a change developing in
the egt I'll check the plugs as soon as possible. The EGT gauges should be
used as a guide not the last word on engine performance.
Noel
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Malcolm
Brubaker
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: 582 RPM question.
I run a tiny tack along w my large dial tack because it is not as accurate
as the tiny is. practically the only time a tack is mandatory is to set
prop pitch for maximum rpm for climb out and to let you know when your B
gear box needs maintenance because of rough idling above 2000 rpm the
performance of a two stroke varies greatly because of density altitude and
it is sometimes moor in portent to run your motor at a setting that gives
you the best egt reading and not at a perdetermined rpm I know some people
that run the egt at a setting that looks good on the gage despite the fact
that their plugs look too white to me and other that run the plugs so rich
that they run the risk of fowling and that greatly increases the amount of
carbon build up yet I don't know many people that check their egt gages
agents a spare one or that run constantly high egt readings because there
plugs tell them the setting is ok I have Benn told by Eric tucker that is
things like is the reason the FAA considered thees craft an experiment and
uncertafied aircraft
--- On Sat, 12/27/08, 815TL <lawrenceaw@corning.com> wrote:
From: 815TL <lawrenceaw@corning.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: 582 RPM question.
<lawrenceaw@corning.com>
Thanks again everyone for all the info. It sounds like the Tiny Tach is the
way to go, and they are fairly inexpensive. Should I just remove the old
tach
and put this in place, or
D========================
=========
D========================
=========
D========================
=========
D========================
=========
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 |
|
Neat Skis Kirk...
What is the frame made out off, looks like 1/4 plate?
Ron
> Hello Fellow Snowfoxers,
>
> Attached are a few more pictures of my skis for those of you that
> are interested. My memory is a little flawed. Earlier I stated that
> my skis are 12" wide. After I took these pictures a couple days
> ago, I checked and in fact they are only 10" wide. My bad. I think
> the "sometimers" is setting in.
>
> Kirk
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 9:11 AM, fox5flyer
> wrote:
>
>> Great commentary, Kirk. Thanks for sharing. A lot of the folks
>> on this list never see snow and have little use for this ski
>> stuff, but for those of us that do, I'm finding it a treasure of
>> information. I have a set of Federal 1500s for my S5, but I
>> think I can do much better. All it takes is a little bit of
>> information here, a little there, some inspiration, tinkering,
>> and away we go. I don't think there is any big mystery or magic
>> about making a good set of skis. Just some imagination, common
>> sense, some work, and the fun begins.
>> Awaiting those photos.
>> Deke Morisse
>> Mikado Michigan
>> S5/Subaru/CAP 402+ TT
>> "The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but
>> progress." - Joseph Joubert
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Kitfoxkirk
>>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 10:45 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: skis
>>>
>>>
>>> There are two wheels in tandem like a roller blade. I wanted
>>> only two wheels, otherwise one would not be able to turn the
>>> plane on pavement. Since these pictures I posted (taken in
>>> 2004), I purchased better wheels. The wheels I now have are 6"
>>> in diameter, and 2" wide. They are rounded so the profile is
>>> very small. As I stated earlier, the skis do very well in
>>> powder snow. I was at a grass strip with about 12" to 18" of
>>> tight powder snow, and the skis worked very well. I was off the
>>> ground in the same time as I would be on packed snow. When I
>>> shut down, I dug down into the snow to check how deep I sank
>>> and found that I went down about half the depth of snow (about
>>> 6" to 8" down). My prop was still well out of the snow. I made
>>> the skis a little tall because I wanted to keep the prop out of
>>> the snow as much as possible.
>>>
>>> The wheels in the ski were designed for pavement use. That is
>>> why I wanted a non-pneumatic wheel. I did not want to have any
>>> suspension to give and allow the ski to plant on a hard landing
>>> to pavement. This would cause the skis to grab the pavement and
>>> flip the plane over on its top. Not a good time! The idea was
>>> to have only 1" of wheel penetrating the ski. This would
>>> provide a very small profile in powder snow. In packed snow,
>>> the wheels act like a skeg to a degree. They almost give me
>>> directional authority while taxiing on hard packed snow.
>>>
>>> I do not believe the wheels would do very good on soft grass.
>>> As I stated, the profile is very small, and that was to allow
>>> landings on snow or pavement without any device to move the
>>> wheels up or down. I think in soft grass the wheels would sink
>>> in and you would be ski on sod. Even the UHMW polyethylene does
>>> not do so well on dry grass.
>>>
>>> I made the ski bottoms out of UHMW polyethylene that I
>>> purchased from Minnesota plastics about 10 years ago. I don't
>>> know if they are still in business, but a google search would
>>> turn up some supplier I'm sure. The bottoms were suppose to be
>>> .250", but I think these are closer to .500".
>>>
>>> The skis are a little heavy at about 19lbs each. But, they have
>>> been tested. I slammed my Classic IV into the paved runway
>>> pretty hard, not by choice, but by poor execution of a landing
>>> on a windy day. When I conducted a post flight inspection,
>>> there were no cracks or bends of any kind. When I designed the
>>> frame of the ski, I placed it in my 20 ton press and cranked on
>>> it with a 400 lb scale under it. I reached the 400 lbs on the
>>> scale and went a little more. There was no bending or
>>> deformation. The wheels are rated at 650lb static, and I think
>>> several thousand pound point load for one or two seconds. I
>>> have four wheels, so there is no overload there.
>>>
>>> As I stated earlier, I will get some more photos on line in a
>>> few days.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>> Kirk
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:54 PM, fox5flyer
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Great looking skis, Kirk and good craftsmanship! Am I
>>>> interpreting this correctly that the entire ski rides on the
>>>> little wheel in the center? How does it do on a grass strip?
>>>> Is that 1/2 plastic (UHMW) and where did you find it? Ever
>>>> thought of marketing them?
>>>> I'm impressed.
>>>>
>>>> Deke Morisse
>>>> Mikado Michigan
>>>> S5/Subaru/CAP 402+ TT
>>>> "The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory,
>>>> but progress." - Joseph Joubert
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Kitfoxkirk
>>>>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 2:29 PM Subject: Re:
>>>>> Kitfox-List: Re: skis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I will try to get some detailed pictures this weekend and
>>>>> send them out.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kirk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:07 AM, DeWayne Clifford
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kirk , they look very interesting .May I request a couple
>>>>>> of close up pictures .
>>>>>> DeWayne at kitfox@bresnan.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: Kitfoxkirk
>>>>>>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 6:33 AM Subject: Re:
>>>>>>> Kitfox-List: Re: skis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I designed and built these aluminum skis (see attached
>>>>>>> photos) with small 6" plastic-rubber castor wheels
>>>>>>> attached. They are 12" wide and 48" long. I can land on
>>>>>>> snow or pavement, and they do very well in 12" powder.
>>>>>>> The castors are semi hard rubber (I think they are 75
>>>>>>> Durometer) and they only stick through the ski about
>>>>>>> 1". So, the profile drag in the powder is almost non-
>>>>>>> existent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can take more pictures if anyone is interested in
>>>>>>> this design.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kirk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 8:14 AM, akflyer
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Paul A. Franz, P.E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> While watching the Dave Fisher (thanks, Gary
>>>>>>>>> Algate) video of the KF on skis
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would appear to me that there is a great deal of
>>>>>>>>> sliding friction and a lack of
>>>>>>>>> flotation. The ski designs all appear to be fairly
>>>>>>>>> rigid. >From my snow skiing
>>>>>>>>> experience, I would think that the skis might even
>>>>>>>>> be getting snow caking. It would
>>>>>>>>> seem to me that they need to have more area from
>>>>>>>>> being longer, not wider and if they
>>>>>>>>> were slightly flexible then with aileron control
>>>>>>>>> you could lean the plane into a turn
>>>>>>>>> slightly and you would be able to turn.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wouldn't adding length and flexibility improve
>>>>>>>>> flotation, reduce friction and greatly
>>>>>>>>> improve maneuverability?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know Lynn is building new skis and using vacuum
>>>>>>>>> bagging to build up the bases. If it
>>>>>>>>> were designed as skis for powder, I'd think you'd
>>>>>>>>> want a length to width ratio of
>>>>>>>>> about 25 with slightly wider front tips and a
>>>>>>>>> loading of about 1.0 lbs/in?. So that
>>>>>>>>> would mean for a 1200 lb aircraft with two skis,
>>>>>>>>> each ski would be designed for 600 lb
>>>>>>>>> load and would have 600 in?. Given a length to
>>>>>>>>> width ratio of 25 that would be mean
>>>>>>>>> each ski would be 4.9" wide and 120" long and be
>>>>>>>>> flexible enough so that the tips
>>>>>>>>> could flex up going over ruts and ridges with a
>>>>>>>>> loading center about 50" from the rear
>>>>>>>>> tip of the ski.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have skis of such dimensions been tried?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 'Twas the nocturnal segment of the diurnal period
>>>>>>>>> preceding the annual Yuletide celebration, And
>>>>>>>>> throughout our place of residence, Kinetic activity
>>>>>>>>> was not in evidence among the possessors of this
>>>>>>>>> potential, including that species of domestic
>>>>>>>>> rodent known as Mus musculus. Hosiery was
>>>>>>>>> meticulously suspended from the forward edge of
>>>>>>>>> the woodburning caloric apparatus, Pursuant to our
>>>>>>>>> anticipatory pleasure regarding an imminent
>>>>>>>>> visitation from an eccentric philanthropist
>>>>>>>>> among whose folkloric appellations is the
>>>>>>>>> honorific title of St. Nicklaus ... -- Paul A. Franz
>>>>>>>>> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT Engine/Prop
>>>>>>>>> - Rotax 914/NSI CAP Bellevue WA 425.241.1618 Cell
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> would be a neat trick trying to rig them and keeping
>>>>>>>> the cables out ofthe prop. Would be a bit silly to
>>>>>>>> have 12 foot long ski's. If yer gonna do that, just
>>>>>>>> use full lotus floats.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --------
>>>>>>>> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>>>>>>>> Leonard Perry
>>>>>>>> Soldotna AK
>>>>>>>> Avid "C" / Mk IV
>>>>>>>> 582 IVO IFA
>>>>>>>> Full Lotus 1260
>>>>>>>> As done as any plane will ever be.... cause now the
>>>>>>>> tinkeritis takes over.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> hander outer of humorless darwin awards
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220727#2207==============
>>>>>>>> ========
>>>>>>>> Month (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Raiser.
>>>>>>>> out more
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List"
>>>>>> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-
>>>>>> List target=_blank>http://forums.matronics.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ???~???,? g(???M?Gq?z??
>>>> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List"
>>>> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>>>> target=_blank>http://forums.matronics.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> ???~???,? g(???M?Gq?z??
>>>
>>>
>> ===========================================================
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 |
|
Thanks Ron.
The frame is made from .125" 6061 T6 aluminum plate. I made 4 revisions to
the prototype before I got the design right. It still may not be right, but
they seem to work.
Kirk
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:29 PM, R.D.(Ron) Leclerc <infow@mts.net> wrote:
>
> Neat Skis Kirk...
>
> What is the frame made out off, looks like 1/4 plate?
>
> Ron
>
> > Hello Fellow Snowfoxers,
> >
> > Attached are a few more pictures of my skis for those of you that
> > are interested. My memory is a little flawed. Earlier I stated that
> > my skis are 12" wide. After I took these pictures a couple days
> > ago, I checked and in fact they are only 10" wide. My bad. I think
> > the "sometimers" is setting in.
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 9:11 AM, fox5flyer
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Great commentary, Kirk. Thanks for sharing. A lot of the folks
> >> on this list never see snow and have little use for this ski
> >> stuff, but for those of us that do, I'm finding it a treasure of
> >> information. I have a set of Federal 1500s for my S5, but I
> >> think I can do much better. All it takes is a little bit of
> >> information here, a little there, some inspiration, tinkering,
> >> and away we go. I don't think there is any big mystery or magic
> >> about making a good set of skis. Just some imagination, common
> >> sense, some work, and the fun begins.
> >> Awaiting those photos.
> >> Deke Morisse
> >> Mikado Michigan
> >> S5/Subaru/CAP 402+ TT
> >> "The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but
> >> progress." - Joseph Joubert
> >>
> >> do not archive
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: Kitfoxkirk
> >>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 10:45 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: skis
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> There are two wheels in tandem like a roller blade. I wanted
> >>> only two wheels, otherwise one would not be able to turn the
> >>> plane on pavement. Since these pictures I posted (taken in
> >>> 2004), I purchased better wheels. The wheels I now have are 6"
> >>> in diameter, and 2" wide. They are rounded so the profile is
> >>> very small. As I stated earlier, the skis do very well in
> >>> powder snow. I was at a grass strip with about 12" to 18" of
> >>> tight powder snow, and the skis worked very well. I was off the
> >>> ground in the same time as I would be on packed snow. When I
> >>> shut down, I dug down into the snow to check how deep I sank
> >>> and found that I went down about half the depth of snow (about
> >>> 6" to 8" down). My prop was still well out of the snow. I made
> >>> the skis a little tall because I wanted to keep the prop out of
> >>> the snow as much as possible.
> >>>
> >>> The wheels in the ski were designed for pavement use. That is
> >>> why I wanted a non-pneumatic wheel. I did not want to have any
> >>> suspension to give and allow the ski to plant on a hard landing
> >>> to pavement. This would cause the skis to grab the pavement and
> >>> flip the plane over on its top. Not a good time! The idea was
> >>> to have only 1" of wheel penetrating the ski. This would
> >>> provide a very small profile in powder snow. In packed snow,
> >>> the wheels act like a skeg to a degree. They almost give me
> >>> directional authority while taxiing on hard packed snow.
> >>>
> >>> I do not believe the wheels would do very good on soft grass.
> >>> As I stated, the profile is very small, and that was to allow
> >>> landings on snow or pavement without any device to move the
> >>> wheels up or down. I think in soft grass the wheels would sink
> >>> in and you would be ski on sod. Even the UHMW polyethylene does
> >>> not do so well on dry grass.
> >>>
> >>> I made the ski bottoms out of UHMW polyethylene that I
> >>> purchased from Minnesota plastics about 10 years ago. I don't
> >>> know if they are still in business, but a google search would
> >>> turn up some supplier I'm sure. The bottoms were suppose to be
> >>> .250", but I think these are closer to .500".
> >>>
> >>> The skis are a little heavy at about 19lbs each. But, they have
> >>> been tested. I slammed my Classic IV into the paved runway
> >>> pretty hard, not by choice, but by poor execution of a landing
> >>> on a windy day. When I conducted a post flight inspection,
> >>> there were no cracks or bends of any kind. When I designed the
> >>> frame of the ski, I placed it in my 20 ton press and cranked on
> >>> it with a 400 lb scale under it. I reached the 400 lbs on the
> >>> scale and went a little more. There was no bending or
> >>> deformation. The wheels are rated at 650lb static, and I think
> >>> several thousand pound point load for one or two seconds. I
> >>> have four wheels, so there is no overload there.
> >>>
> >>> As I stated earlier, I will get some more photos on line in a
> >>> few days.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Kirk
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:54 PM, fox5flyer
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Great looking skis, Kirk and good craftsmanship! Am I
> >>>> interpreting this correctly that the entire ski rides on the
> >>>> little wheel in the center? How does it do on a grass strip?
> >>>> Is that 1/2 plastic (UHMW) and where did you find it? Ever
> >>>> thought of marketing them?
> >>>> I'm impressed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Deke Morisse
> >>>> Mikado Michigan
> >>>> S5/Subaru/CAP 402+ TT
> >>>> "The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory,
> >>>> but progress." - Joseph Joubert
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>> From: Kitfoxkirk
> >>>>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 2:29 PM Subject: Re:
> >>>>> Kitfox-List: Re: skis
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I will try to get some detailed pictures this weekend and
> >>>>> send them out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Kirk
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:07 AM, DeWayne Clifford
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Kirk , they look very interesting .May I request a couple
> >>>>>> of close up pictures .
> >>>>>> DeWayne at kitfox@bresnan.net
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>> From: Kitfoxkirk
> >>>>>>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 6:33 AM Subject: Re:
> >>>>>>> Kitfox-List: Re: skis
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I designed and built these aluminum skis (see attached
> >>>>>>> photos) with small 6" plastic-rubber castor wheels
> >>>>>>> attached. They are 12" wide and 48" long. I can land on
> >>>>>>> snow or pavement, and they do very well in 12" powder.
> >>>>>>> The castors are semi hard rubber (I think they are 75
> >>>>>>> Durometer) and they only stick through the ski about
> >>>>>>> 1". So, the profile drag in the powder is almost non-
> >>>>>>> existent.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I can take more pictures if anyone is interested in
> >>>>>>> this design.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Just my 2 cents.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Kirk
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 8:14 AM, akflyer
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Paul A. Franz, P.E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> While watching the Dave Fisher (thanks, Gary
> >>>>>>>>> Algate) video of the KF on skis
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It would appear to me that there is a great deal of
> >>>>>>>>> sliding friction and a lack of
> >>>>>>>>> flotation. The ski designs all appear to be fairly
> >>>>>>>>> rigid. >From my snow skiing
> >>>>>>>>> experience, I would think that the skis might even
> >>>>>>>>> be getting snow caking. It would
> >>>>>>>>> seem to me that they need to have more area from
> >>>>>>>>> being longer, not wider and if they
> >>>>>>>>> were slightly flexible then with aileron control
> >>>>>>>>> you could lean the plane into a turn
> >>>>>>>>> slightly and you would be able to turn.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Wouldn't adding length and flexibility improve
> >>>>>>>>> flotation, reduce friction and greatly
> >>>>>>>>> improve maneuverability?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I know Lynn is building new skis and using vacuum
> >>>>>>>>> bagging to build up the bases. If it
> >>>>>>>>> were designed as skis for powder, I'd think you'd
> >>>>>>>>> want a length to width ratio of
> >>>>>>>>> about 25 with slightly wider front tips and a
> >>>>>>>>> loading of about 1.0 lbs/in?. So that
> >>>>>>>>> would mean for a 1200 lb aircraft with two skis,
> >>>>>>>>> each ski would be designed for 600 lb
> >>>>>>>>> load and would have 600 in?. Given a length to
> >>>>>>>>> width ratio of 25 that would be mean
> >>>>>>>>> each ski would be 4.9" wide and 120" long and be
> >>>>>>>>> flexible enough so that the tips
> >>>>>>>>> could flex up going over ruts and ridges with a
> >>>>>>>>> loading center about 50" from the rear
> >>>>>>>>> tip of the ski.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Have skis of such dimensions been tried?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 'Twas the nocturnal segment of the diurnal period
> >>>>>>>>> preceding the annual Yuletide celebration, And
> >>>>>>>>> throughout our place of residence, Kinetic activity
> >>>>>>>>> was not in evidence among the possessors of this
> >>>>>>>>> potential, including that species of domestic
> >>>>>>>>> rodent known as Mus musculus. Hosiery was
> >>>>>>>>> meticulously suspended from the forward edge of
> >>>>>>>>> the woodburning caloric apparatus, Pursuant to our
> >>>>>>>>> anticipatory pleasure regarding an imminent
> >>>>>>>>> visitation from an eccentric philanthropist
> >>>>>>>>> among whose folkloric appellations is the
> >>>>>>>>> honorific title of St. Nicklaus ... -- Paul A. Franz
> >>>>>>>>> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT Engine/Prop
> >>>>>>>>> - Rotax 914/NSI CAP Bellevue WA 425.241.1618 Cell
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> would be a neat trick trying to rig them and keeping
> >>>>>>>> the cables out ofthe prop. Would be a bit silly to
> >>>>>>>> have 12 foot long ski's. If yer gonna do that, just
> >>>>>>>> use full lotus floats.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --------
> >>>>>>>> DO NOT ARCHIVE
> >>>>>>>> Leonard Perry
> >>>>>>>> Soldotna AK
> >>>>>>>> Avid "C" / Mk IV
> >>>>>>>> 582 IVO IFA
> >>>>>>>> Full Lotus 1260
> >>>>>>>> As done as any plane will ever be.... cause now the
> >>>>>>>> tinkeritis takes over.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> hander outer of humorless darwin awards
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Read this topic online here:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220727#2207==============
> >>>>>>>> ========
> >>>>>>>> Month (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Raiser.
> >>>>>>>> out more
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >>>>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List"
> >>>>>> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-
> >>>>>> List target=_blank>http://forums.matronics.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ???~???,? g(???M?Gq?z??
> >>>> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List"
> >>>> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
> >>>> target=_blank>http://forums.matronics.com
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ???~???,? g(???M?Gq?z??
> >>>
> >>>
> >> ===========================================================
>
>
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: | 503 Engine Fogging-OOPS |
Take it out through the exhaust port.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom Jones
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 6:55 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: 503 Engine Fogging-OOPS
Today I was going to fog the crankcase on my 503 like Rotax recommends for
more than a few weeks storage. I aimed the extension tube in the throat of
the front carb and pressed the nozzle down. You wouldn't believe it but the
extension tube on the fogging oil can came off and shot straight into the
basement of the crankcase.
I took the carb off to get a better look but can't see it. Any ideas how to
get it out? Only way I can think of is to take the cylinder off.
To add insult to injury I got stung by a dormant hornet between two fingers
when I picked up a wrench. Its been zero degrees for two weeks here.
--------
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=221505#221505
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 |
|
Thanks Kirk
What did you use to get the curved up front of the ski... and how high does it
come up? Looks like it is 2-3" only... seems kind of low!
Ron
> Thanks Ron.
>
> The frame is made from .125" 6061 T6 aluminum plate. I made 4
> revisions to the prototype before I got the design right. It still
> may not be right, but they seem to work.
>
>
> Kirk
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:29 PM, R.D.(Ron) Leclerc
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Neat Skis Kirk...
>>
>> What is the frame made out off, looks like 1/4 plate?
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>> Hello Fellow Snowfoxers,
>>>
>>> Attached are a few more pictures of my skis for those of you
>>> that are interested. My memory is a little flawed. Earlier I
>>> stated that my skis are 12" wide. After I took these pictures a
>>> couple days ago, I checked and in fact they are only 10" wide.
>>> My bad. I think the "sometimers" is setting in.
>>>
>>> Kirk
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 9:11 AM, fox5flyer
>>>
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Great commentary, Kirk. Thanks for sharing. A lot of the
>>>> folks on this list never see snow and have little use for
>>>> this ski stuff, but for those of us that do, I'm finding it a
>>>> treasure of information. I have a set of Federal 1500s for
>>>> my S5, but I think I can do much better. All it takes is a
>>>> little bit of information here, a little there, some
>>>> inspiration, tinkering, and away we go. I don't think there
>>>> is any big mystery or magic about making a good set of skis.
>>>> Just some imagination, common sense, some work, and the fun
>>>> begins. Awaiting those photos. Deke Morisse Mikado Michigan
>>>> S5/Subaru/CAP 402+ TT
>>>> "The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory,
>>>> but progress." - Joseph Joubert
>>>>
>>>> do not archive
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Kitfoxkirk
>>>>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 10:45 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: skis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are two wheels in tandem like a roller blade. I
>>>>> wanted only two wheels, otherwise one would not be able to
>>>>> turn the plane on pavement. Since these pictures I posted
>>>>> (taken in 2004), I purchased better wheels. The wheels I
>>>>> now have are 6" in diameter, and 2" wide. They are rounded
>>>>> so the profile is very small. As I stated earlier, the skis
>>>>> do very well in powder snow. I was at a grass strip with
>>>>> about 12" to 18" of tight powder snow, and the skis worked
>>>>> very well. I was off the ground in the same time as I would
>>>>> be on packed snow. When I shut down, I dug down into the
>>>>> snow to check how deep I sank and found that I went down
>>>>> about half the depth of snow (about 6" to 8" down). My prop
>>>>> was still well out of the snow. I made the skis a little
>>>>> tall because I wanted to keep the prop out of the snow as
>>>>> much as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> The wheels in the ski were designed for pavement use. That
>>>>> is why I wanted a non-pneumatic wheel. I did not want to
>>>>> have any suspension to give and allow the ski to plant on a
>>>>> hard landing to pavement. This would cause the skis to grab
>>>>> the pavement and flip the plane over on its top. Not a good
>>>>> time! The idea was to have only 1" of wheel penetrating the
>>>>> ski. This would provide a very small profile in powder
>>>>> snow. In packed snow, the wheels act like a skeg to a
>>>>> degree. They almost give me directional authority while
>>>>> taxiing on hard packed snow.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not believe the wheels would do very good on soft
>>>>> grass. As I stated, the profile is very small, and that was
>>>>> to allow landings on snow or pavement without any device to
>>>>> move the wheels up or down. I think in soft grass the
>>>>> wheels would sink in and you would be ski on sod. Even the
>>>>> UHMW polyethylene does not do so well on dry grass.
>>>>>
>>>>> I made the ski bottoms out of UHMW polyethylene that I
>>>>> purchased from Minnesota plastics about 10 years ago. I
>>>>> don't know if they are still in business, but a google
>>>>> search would turn up some supplier I'm sure. The bottoms
>>>>> were suppose to be .250", but I think these are closer to
>>>>> .500".
>>>>>
>>>>> The skis are a little heavy at about 19lbs each. But, they
>>>>> have been tested. I slammed my Classic IV into the paved
>>>>> runway pretty hard, not by choice, but by poor execution of
>>>>> a landing on a windy day. When I conducted a post flight
>>>>> inspection, there were no cracks or bends of any kind. When
>>>>> I designed the frame of the ski, I placed it in my 20 ton
>>>>> press and cranked on it with a 400 lb scale under it. I
>>>>> reached the 400 lbs on the scale and went a little more.
>>>>> There was no bending or deformation. The wheels are rated
>>>>> at 650lb static, and I think several thousand pound point
>>>>> load for one or two seconds. I have four wheels, so there
>>>>> is no overload there.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I stated earlier, I will get some more photos on line in
>>>>> a few days.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kirk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:54 PM, fox5flyer
>>>>>
>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Great looking skis, Kirk and good craftsmanship! Am I
>>>>>> interpreting this correctly that the entire ski rides on
>>>>>> the little wheel in the center? How does it do on a
>>>>>> grass strip? Is that 1/2 plastic (UHMW) and where did
>>>>>> you find it? Ever thought of marketing them? I'm
>>>>>> impressed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Deke Morisse
>>>>>> Mikado Michigan
>>>>>> S5/Subaru/CAP 402+ TT
>>>>>> "The aim of an argument or discussion should not be
>>>>>> victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: Kitfoxkirk
>>>>>>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 2:29 PM Subject: Re:
>>>>>>> Kitfox-List: Re: skis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will try to get some detailed pictures this weekend
>>>>>>> and send them out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kirk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:07 AM, DeWayne Clifford
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kirk , they look very interesting .May I request a
>>>>>>>> couple of close up pictures . DeWayne at
>>>>>>>> kitfox@bresnan.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>> From: Kitfoxkirk
>>>>>>>>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 6:33 AM Subject:
>>>>>>>>> Re: Kitfox-List: Re: skis
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I designed and built these aluminum skis (see
>>>>>>>>> attached photos) with small 6" plastic-rubber
>>>>>>>>> castor wheels attached. They are 12" wide and 48"
>>>>>>>>> long. I can land on snow or pavement, and they do
>>>>>>>>> very well in 12" powder. The castors are semi hard
>>>>>>>>> rubber (I think they are 75 Durometer) and they
>>>>>>>>> only stick through the ski about 1". So, the
>>>>>>>>> profile drag in the powder is almost non- existent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can take more pictures if anyone is interested in
>>>>>>>>> this design.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kirk
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 8:14 AM, akflyer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Paul A. Franz, P.E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> While watching the Dave Fisher (thanks, Gary
>>>>>>>>>>> Algate) video of the KF on skis
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It would appear to me that there is a great
>>>>>>>>>>> deal of sliding friction and a lack of
>>>>>>>>>>> flotation. The ski designs all appear to be
>>>>>>>>>>> fairly rigid. >From my snow skiing
>>>>>>>>>>> experience, I would think that the skis might
>>>>>>>>>>> even be getting snow caking. It would
>>>>>>>>>>> seem to me that they need to have more area
>>>>>>>>>>> from being longer, not wider and if they
>>>>>>>>>>> were slightly flexible then with aileron
>>>>>>>>>>> control you could lean the plane into a turn
>>>>>>>>>>> slightly and you would be able to turn.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wouldn't adding length and flexibility improve
>>>>>>>>>>> flotation, reduce friction and greatly improve
>>>>>>>>>>> maneuverability?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I know Lynn is building new skis and using
>>>>>>>>>>> vacuum bagging to build up the bases. If it
>>>>>>>>>>> were designed as skis for powder, I'd think
>>>>>>>>>>> you'd want a length to width ratio of
>>>>>>>>>>> about 25 with slightly wider front tips and a
>>>>>>>>>>> loading of about 1.0 lbs/in?. So that
>>>>>>>>>>> would mean for a 1200 lb aircraft with two
>>>>>>>>>>> skis, each ski would be designed for 600 lb
>>>>>>>>>>> load and would have 600 in?. Given a length to
>>>>>>>>>>> width ratio of 25 that would be mean
>>>>>>>>>>> each ski would be 4.9" wide and 120" long and
>>>>>>>>>>> be flexible enough so that the tips
>>>>>>>>>>> could flex up going over ruts and ridges with a
>>>>>>>>>>> loading center about 50" from the rear tip of
>>>>>>>>>>> the ski.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Have skis of such dimensions been tried?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 'Twas the nocturnal segment of the diurnal
>>>>>>>>>>> period preceding the annual Yuletide
>>>>>>>>>>> celebration, And throughout our place of
>>>>>>>>>>> residence, Kinetic activity was not in evidence
>>>>>>>>>>> among the possessors of this potential,
>>>>>>>>>>> including that species of domestic rodent
>>>>>>>>>>> known as Mus musculus. Hosiery was meticulously
>>>>>>>>>>> suspended from the forward edge of the
>>>>>>>>>>> woodburning caloric apparatus, Pursuant to our
>>>>>>>>>>> anticipatory pleasure regarding an imminent
>>>>>>>>>>> visitation from an eccentric philanthropist
>>>>>>>>>>> among whose folkloric appellations is the
>>>>>>>>>>> honorific title of St. Nicklaus ... -- Paul A.
>>>>>>>>>>> Franz Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
>>>>>>>>>>> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP Bellevue WA
>>>>>>>>>>> 425.241.1618 Cell
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> would be a neat trick trying to rig them and
>>>>>>>>>> keeping the cables out ofthe prop. Would be a
>>>>>>>>>> bit silly to have 12 foot long ski's. If yer
>>>>>>>>>> gonna do that, just use full lotus floats.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --------
>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>>>>>>>>>> Leonard Perry
>>>>>>>>>> Soldotna AK
>>>>>>>>>> Avid "C" / Mk IV
>>>>>>>>>> 582 IVO IFA
>>>>>>>>>> Full Lotus 1260
>>>>>>>>>> As done as any plane will ever be.... cause now
>>>>>>>>>> the tinkeritis takes over.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> hander outer of humorless darwin awards
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220727#2207==============
>>>>>>>>>> ========
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Month (And Get Some AWESOME FREE
>>>>>>>>>> Raiser. out more
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>>>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List"
>>>>>>>> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox- List target=_
>>>>>>>> blank>http://forums.matronics.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ???~???,? g(???M?Gq?z??
>>>>>> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List"
>>>>>> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-
>>>>>> List target=_blank>http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
> ===========================================================
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 |
|
It is only about 3" high.
I used a garbage can lid to trace an arc to a piece of wood that looked
about right. I then took the wooden template and traced it to one side of a
piece of aluminum angle that is the ski portion of the frame. I cut the
piece out, then bent the bottom of the angle to match the arc and welded it.
It could be low, but other store bought skis are about the same. I then cut
the scrap off, and welded a cross piece in.
Kirk
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 9:00 PM, R.D.(Ron) Leclerc <infow@mts.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks Kirk
>
> What did you use to get the curved up front of the ski... and how high does
> it come up? Looks like it is 2-3" only... seems kind of low!
>
> Ron
>
> > Thanks Ron.
> >
> > The frame is made from .125" 6061 T6 aluminum plate. I made 4
> > revisions to the prototype before I got the design right. It still
> > may not be right, but they seem to work.
> >
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:29 PM, R.D.(Ron) Leclerc
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Neat Skis Kirk...
> >>
> >> What is the frame made out off, looks like 1/4 plate?
> >>
> >> Ron
> >>
> >>> Hello Fellow Snowfoxers,
> >>>
> >>> Attached are a few more pictures of my skis for those of you
> >>> that are interested. My memory is a little flawed. Earlier I
> >>> stated that my skis are 12" wide. After I took these pictures a
> >>> couple days ago, I checked and in fact they are only 10" wide.
> >>> My bad. I think the "sometimers" is setting in.
> >>>
> >>> Kirk
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 9:11 AM, fox5flyer
> >>>
> >>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Great commentary, Kirk. Thanks for sharing. A lot of the
> >>>> folks on this list never see snow and have little use for
> >>>> this ski stuff, but for those of us that do, I'm finding it a
> >>>> treasure of information. I have a set of Federal 1500s for
> >>>> my S5, but I think I can do much better. All it takes is a
> >>>> little bit of information here, a little there, some
> >>>> inspiration, tinkering, and away we go. I don't think there
> >>>> is any big mystery or magic about making a good set of skis.
> >>>> Just some imagination, common sense, some work, and the fun
> >>>> begins. Awaiting those photos. Deke Morisse Mikado Michigan
> >>>> S5/Subaru/CAP 402+ TT
> >>>> "The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory,
> >>>> but progress." - Joseph Joubert
> >>>>
> >>>> do not archive
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>> From: Kitfoxkirk
> >>>>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 10:45 PM
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: skis
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There are two wheels in tandem like a roller blade. I
> >>>>> wanted only two wheels, otherwise one would not be able to
> >>>>> turn the plane on pavement. Since these pictures I posted
> >>>>> (taken in 2004), I purchased better wheels. The wheels I
> >>>>> now have are 6" in diameter, and 2" wide. They are rounded
> >>>>> so the profile is very small. As I stated earlier, the skis
> >>>>> do very well in powder snow. I was at a grass strip with
> >>>>> about 12" to 18" of tight powder snow, and the skis worked
> >>>>> very well. I was off the ground in the same time as I would
> >>>>> be on packed snow. When I shut down, I dug down into the
> >>>>> snow to check how deep I sank and found that I went down
> >>>>> about half the depth of snow (about 6" to 8" down). My prop
> >>>>> was still well out of the snow. I made the skis a little
> >>>>> tall because I wanted to keep the prop out of the snow as
> >>>>> much as possible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The wheels in the ski were designed for pavement use. That
> >>>>> is why I wanted a non-pneumatic wheel. I did not want to
> >>>>> have any suspension to give and allow the ski to plant on a
> >>>>> hard landing to pavement. This would cause the skis to grab
> >>>>> the pavement and flip the plane over on its top. Not a good
> >>>>> time! The idea was to have only 1" of wheel penetrating the
> >>>>> ski. This would provide a very small profile in powder
> >>>>> snow. In packed snow, the wheels act like a skeg to a
> >>>>> degree. They almost give me directional authority while
> >>>>> taxiing on hard packed snow.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I do not believe the wheels would do very good on soft
> >>>>> grass. As I stated, the profile is very small, and that was
> >>>>> to allow landings on snow or pavement without any device to
> >>>>> move the wheels up or down. I think in soft grass the
> >>>>> wheels would sink in and you would be ski on sod. Even the
> >>>>> UHMW polyethylene does not do so well on dry grass.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I made the ski bottoms out of UHMW polyethylene that I
> >>>>> purchased from Minnesota plastics about 10 years ago. I
> >>>>> don't know if they are still in business, but a google
> >>>>> search would turn up some supplier I'm sure. The bottoms
> >>>>> were suppose to be .250", but I think these are closer to
> >>>>> .500".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The skis are a little heavy at about 19lbs each. But, they
> >>>>> have been tested. I slammed my Classic IV into the paved
> >>>>> runway pretty hard, not by choice, but by poor execution of
> >>>>> a landing on a windy day. When I conducted a post flight
> >>>>> inspection, there were no cracks or bends of any kind. When
> >>>>> I designed the frame of the ski, I placed it in my 20 ton
> >>>>> press and cranked on it with a 400 lb scale under it. I
> >>>>> reached the 400 lbs on the scale and went a little more.
> >>>>> There was no bending or deformation. The wheels are rated
> >>>>> at 650lb static, and I think several thousand pound point
> >>>>> load for one or two seconds. I have four wheels, so there
> >>>>> is no overload there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As I stated earlier, I will get some more photos on line in
> >>>>> a few days.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Kirk
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:54 PM, fox5flyer
> >>>>>
> >>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Great looking skis, Kirk and good craftsmanship! Am I
> >>>>>> interpreting this correctly that the entire ski rides on
> >>>>>> the little wheel in the center? How does it do on a
> >>>>>> grass strip? Is that 1/2 plastic (UHMW) and where did
> >>>>>> you find it? Ever thought of marketing them? I'm
> >>>>>> impressed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Deke Morisse
> >>>>>> Mikado Michigan
> >>>>>> S5/Subaru/CAP 402+ TT
> >>>>>> "The aim of an argument or discussion should not be
> >>>>>> victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>> From: Kitfoxkirk
> >>>>>>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 2:29 PM Subject: Re:
> >>>>>>> Kitfox-List: Re: skis
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I will try to get some detailed pictures this weekend
> >>>>>>> and send them out.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Kirk
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:07 AM, DeWayne Clifford
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Kirk , they look very interesting .May I request a
> >>>>>>>> couple of close up pictures . DeWayne at
> >>>>>>>> kitfox@bresnan.net
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>>>> From: Kitfoxkirk
> >>>>>>>>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 6:33 AM Subject:
> >>>>>>>>> Re: Kitfox-List: Re: skis
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I designed and built these aluminum skis (see
> >>>>>>>>> attached photos) with small 6" plastic-rubber
> >>>>>>>>> castor wheels attached. They are 12" wide and 48"
> >>>>>>>>> long. I can land on snow or pavement, and they do
> >>>>>>>>> very well in 12" powder. The castors are semi hard
> >>>>>>>>> rubber (I think they are 75 Durometer) and they
> >>>>>>>>> only stick through the ski about 1". So, the
> >>>>>>>>> profile drag in the powder is almost non- existent.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I can take more pictures if anyone is interested in
> >>>>>>>>> this design.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Kirk
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 8:14 AM, akflyer
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>> Paul A. Franz, P.E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> While watching the Dave Fisher (thanks, Gary
> >>>>>>>>>>> Algate) video of the KF on skis
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It would appear to me that there is a great
> >>>>>>>>>>> deal of sliding friction and a lack of
> >>>>>>>>>>> flotation. The ski designs all appear to be
> >>>>>>>>>>> fairly rigid. >From my snow skiing
> >>>>>>>>>>> experience, I would think that the skis might
> >>>>>>>>>>> even be getting snow caking. It would
> >>>>>>>>>>> seem to me that they need to have more area
> >>>>>>>>>>> from being longer, not wider and if they
> >>>>>>>>>>> were slightly flexible then with aileron
> >>>>>>>>>>> control you could lean the plane into a turn
> >>>>>>>>>>> slightly and you would be able to turn.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Wouldn't adding length and flexibility improve
> >>>>>>>>>>> flotation, reduce friction and greatly improve
> >>>>>>>>>>> maneuverability?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I know Lynn is building new skis and using
> >>>>>>>>>>> vacuum bagging to build up the bases. If it
> >>>>>>>>>>> were designed as skis for powder, I'd think
> >>>>>>>>>>> you'd want a length to width ratio of
> >>>>>>>>>>> about 25 with slightly wider front tips and a
> >>>>>>>>>>> loading of about 1.0 lbs/in?. So that
> >>>>>>>>>>> would mean for a 1200 lb aircraft with two
> >>>>>>>>>>> skis, each ski would be designed for 600 lb
> >>>>>>>>>>> load and would have 600 in?. Given a length to
> >>>>>>>>>>> width ratio of 25 that would be mean
> >>>>>>>>>>> each ski would be 4.9" wide and 120" long and
> >>>>>>>>>>> be flexible enough so that the tips
> >>>>>>>>>>> could flex up going over ruts and ridges with a
> >>>>>>>>>>> loading center about 50" from the rear tip of
> >>>>>>>>>>> the ski.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Have skis of such dimensions been tried?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 'Twas the nocturnal segment of the diurnal
> >>>>>>>>>>> period preceding the annual Yuletide
> >>>>>>>>>>> celebration, And throughout our place of
> >>>>>>>>>>> residence, Kinetic activity was not in evidence
> >>>>>>>>>>> among the possessors of this potential,
> >>>>>>>>>>> including that species of domestic rodent
> >>>>>>>>>>> known as Mus musculus. Hosiery was meticulously
> >>>>>>>>>>> suspended from the forward edge of the
> >>>>>>>>>>> woodburning caloric apparatus, Pursuant to our
> >>>>>>>>>>> anticipatory pleasure regarding an imminent
> >>>>>>>>>>> visitation from an eccentric philanthropist
> >>>>>>>>>>> among whose folkloric appellations is the
> >>>>>>>>>>> honorific title of St. Nicklaus ... -- Paul A.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Franz Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
> >>>>>>>>>>> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP Bellevue WA
> >>>>>>>>>>> 425.241.1618 Cell
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> would be a neat trick trying to rig them and
> >>>>>>>>>> keeping the cables out ofthe prop. Would be a
> >>>>>>>>>> bit silly to have 12 foot long ski's. If yer
> >>>>>>>>>> gonna do that, just use full lotus floats.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --------
> >>>>>>>>>> DO NOT ARCHIVE
> >>>>>>>>>> Leonard Perry
> >>>>>>>>>> Soldotna AK
> >>>>>>>>>> Avid "C" / Mk IV
> >>>>>>>>>> 582 IVO IFA
> >>>>>>>>>> Full Lotus 1260
> >>>>>>>>>> As done as any plane will ever be.... cause now
> >>>>>>>>>> the tinkeritis takes over.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> hander outer of humorless darwin awards
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Read this topic online here:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220727#2207==============
> >>>>>>>>>> ========
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>> Month (And Get Some AWESOME FREE
> >>>>>>>>>> Raiser. out more
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >>>>>>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List"
> >>>>>>>> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox- List
> target=_
> >>>>>>>> blank>http://forums.matronics.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ???~???,? g(???M?Gq?z??
> >>>>>> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >>>>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List"
> >>>>>> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-
> >>>>>> List target=_blank>http://forums.matronics.com
> >
> >
> > ===========================================================
>
>
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: | Everybody ground loops? |
In response to Paul Folbrecht <paul.folbrecht@veribox.net> who wrote:
> I'm considering buying either a half share or a whole share in a completed
> Fox (TD). I have no TD time and while becoming taildragger-proficient is
> appealing to me, ground-looping one is *not*!
>
> So.... assuming I get a GOOD TG endorsement from a GOOD instructor, and
> GOOD training in the Kitfox, honestly, should I _seriously_ expect to
> ground-loop it at *some* point?
>
> How about this - everybody who's got 50, 100, 200, 500, etc. hours in
> Kitfoxes while never looping raise your hand! :)
The following is just my opinion for what it is worth to try to answer the question
you pose for someone considering transition from heavy nosewheels to a light
taildragger Kitfox. I don't think it is hours that determine whether a groundloop
will occur. I have flown over 5 hours at a time with only one takeoff
and one landing. It seems that there are a number of factors that are involved,
some of which are listed below, not in a particular order.
1. Design of the aircraft. Width of mains, wider is better (Grove gear is wider
than tube gear on Kitfox). Springiness of gear, stiffness, ability to absorb
shock without bouncing (I found tube gear stiff and bouncy). Ability to get
tail down in flare (difficult in mine, especially with full flaps). Side area
exposed to crosswinds - low on a Kitfox is good. Visibility over the nose when
flaring (none in mine, I use peripheral vision of the ground plane). Landing
speed, slower is better. Speedsters land faster due to shorter wings and
probably the undercambered wing models (I, II, III) land much slower.
2. Construction of Aircraft. Alignment of wheels (I had to align my tube gear).
Type tires, square shoulder (I had) or round (I have now). Proper angle of
tailwheel. Tailwheel spring slack. Gas line on inside of firewall that will
catch the sole of your shoe when stepping on the brake (I had to fix that).
Type of brakes installed (mine were very weak). Dual brakes (easier to get an
instructor; mine has brakes on LH side only, I had to learn to fly it from RH
side first). Type of tailwheel (I have never changed mine). Type of prop; the
Rotax cannot be idled below 1800; the Ivoprop I have on it now acts like a
speed brake in flatter pitch.
3. Maintenance of Aircraft. Brakes, too good is better but can grab or nose you
over if you apply them hard; too bad won't arrest an incipient groundloop, sticking
can cause one. Tire type and condition; you don't want a flat. Alignment
(of tube gear). Tailwheel condition. Tailwheel spring (can loosen or break).
Tailwheel turning springs and fasteners condition (failure will leave you
without steering). Bungees (if you have them, you don't want them to break;
also be sure you have snare cables attached). Making sure all control linkages
and surfaces are fully functional.
4. Experience of pilot. Comfort level in the aircraft. Ability to be on top of
it, ahead of it, to make it do what is wanted and not overcontrol it. Airspeed
control; knowing and using appropriate speeds especially in the area of reverse
command over the fence and what is needed for turns and gusts. Using tailwheel
steering until rudder can take over on takeoff (mine has little rudder
authority at first and wants to shoot off to the left if you lift the tail early).
Adding rudder with throttle. Number of takeoffs and landings, especially
recent experience. More make you more in control. Crosswind technique and
experience, amount and strength of wind. This is needed in mountainous areas
where runways are not always oriented into the prevailing wind. Techniques for
gusts. Mountain strips. Type of surface, hard, soft, grass, dirt, gravel,
wet, soft, rough, short, sloped.
5. Operation. Loaded Weight, heavier lands faster but is not as apt to "float"
if you come in too fast. CG, aft makes lifting tail harder but helps get tail
down on landing. Keeping controls free. Taxiing technique with wind. Paying
attention at all times while moving; no distractions. S-turns. Pilot condition.
You will find your technique flawless at times and sub-par at other times.
My own observations:
Despite having learned in and flown mostly taildraggers in the past, I found my
Kitfox IV Speedster to be a handful at first. It was not for beginners, the
way it was set up. I never found out why. The Grove gear finally tamed it.
It is not easy to find an instructor for Kitfoxes. The main tailwheel instructor
I know in our area will not fly it, having tried one he does not want to add
a groundloop to his resume. Experience in a Champ is not the same, since by
contrast you can see well out the front, it lands slowly, takes lots of control
movement, and has very forgiving gear. A Champ is so docile it makes a Cessna
150 seem hard to land by comparison. The Kitfox is sensitive on the controls,
calling for a light but authoritative touch. It will do just what you ask
it to do, whether or not you realize what you are asking of it. You will consider
a Cessna to fly like a truck after flying a Kitfox.
You can do it if you make the commitment to develop and practice good technique
on every takeoff and landing; lots of people with varying experience do it successfully
as you can see from the list. If you start on a suitable airport with
a well-designed aircraft, assembled and maintained properly, practice a lot,
keep current, pay attention, and expand your envelope as your experience increases,
you should be OK. Tricky conditions are, if course, riskier. Even if
you stay on runways, cross-countries can present you with challenging conditions
for which you have to be prepared to handle when you are tired. It is not
going to be as forgiving of slamming it into the ground nor will it jerk itself
straight out of a bad landing like a nosewheel-equipped Cessna will.
JA KF IV Speedster @ O70
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Everybody ground loops? |
I didn't ground loop today but I did break my tailwheel spring. I had just
landed and was taxiing past the main viewing area (of course) when I heard
a crunch and felt a bump.
I knew straight away what had happened and really didn't want to get out
and see the damage to my rudder.
Today was a good day as the spring broke just above the wheel and there
was enough left to hold the rudder about 1/2" above the ground. I have the
2 x leaf spring version and I check it before each flight so there was
little or no warning.
I am going to have a three leaf spring manufactured this week!
Gary
Gary Algate
Classic 4 Jab 2200
Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the addressees.
Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail in error, kindly notify us immediately by
telephone or e-mail and delete the message from your system. The sender
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of
this message which may arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
?This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we have
made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe and happy
Christmas".
John Allen <kitfoxfugit@yahoo.com>
Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
31/12/2008 05:50 PM
Please respond to
kitfox-list@matronics.com
To
kitfox-list@matronics.com
cc
Subject
Kitfox-List: Everybody ground loops?
In response to Paul Folbrecht <paul.folbrecht@veribox.net> who wrote:
> I'm considering buying either a half share or a whole share in a
completed
> Fox (TD). I have no TD time and while becoming taildragger-proficient
is
> appealing to me, ground-looping one is *not*!
>
> So.... assuming I get a GOOD TG endorsement from a GOOD instructor, and
> GOOD training in the Kitfox, honestly, should I =5Fseriously=5F expect to
> ground-loop it at *some* point?
>
> How about this - everybody who's got 50, 100, 200, 500, etc. hours in
> Kitfoxes while never looping raise your hand! :)
The following is just my opinion for what it is worth to try to answer the
question you pose for someone considering transition from heavy nosewheels
to a light taildragger Kitfox. I don't think it is hours that determine
whether a groundloop will occur. I have flown over 5 hours at a time with
only one takeoff and one landing. It seems that there are a number of
factors that are involved, some of which are listed below, not in a
particular order.
1. Design of the aircraft. Width of mains, wider is better (Grove gear is
wider than tube gear on Kitfox). Springiness of gear, stiffness, ability
to absorb shock without bouncing (I found tube gear stiff and bouncy).
Ability to get tail down in flare (difficult in mine, especially with full
flaps). Side area exposed to crosswinds - low on a Kitfox is good.
Visibility over the nose when flaring (none in mine, I use peripheral
vision of the ground plane). Landing speed, slower is better. Speedsters
land faster due to shorter wings and probably the undercambered wing
models (I, II, III) land much slower.
2. Construction of Aircraft. Alignment of wheels (I had to align my tube
gear). Type tires, square shoulder (I had) or round (I have now). Proper
angle of tailwheel. Tailwheel spring slack. Gas line on inside of
firewall that will catch the sole of your shoe when stepping on the brake
(I had to fix that). Type of brakes installed (mine were very weak). Dual
brakes (easier to get an instructor; mine has brakes on LH side only, I
had to learn to fly it from RH side first). Type of tailwheel (I have
never changed mine). Type of prop; the Rotax cannot be idled below 1800;
the Ivoprop I have on it now acts like a speed brake in flatter pitch.
3. Maintenance of Aircraft. Brakes, too good is better but can grab or
nose you over if you apply them hard; too bad won't arrest an incipient
groundloop, sticking can cause one. Tire type and condition; you don't
want a flat. Alignment (of tube gear). Tailwheel condition. Tailwheel
spring (can loosen or break). Tailwheel turning springs and fasteners
condition (failure will leave you without steering). Bungees (if you have
them, you don't want them to break; also be sure you have snare cables
attached). Making sure all control linkages and surfaces are fully
functional.
4. Experience of pilot. Comfort level in the aircraft. Ability to be on
top of it, ahead of it, to make it do what is wanted and not overcontrol
it. Airspeed control; knowing and using appropriate speeds especially in
the area of reverse command over the fence and what is needed for turns
and gusts. Using tailwheel steering until rudder can take over on takeoff
(mine has little rudder authority at first and wants to shoot off to the
left if you lift the tail early). Adding rudder with throttle. Number of
takeoffs and landings, especially recent experience. More make you more in
control. Crosswind technique and experience, amount and strength of wind.
This is needed in mountainous areas where runways are not always oriented
into the prevailing wind. Techniques for gusts. Mountain strips. Type
of surface, hard, soft, grass, dirt, gravel, wet, soft, rough, short,
sloped.
5. Operation. Loaded Weight, heavier lands faster but is not as apt to
"float" if you come in too fast. CG, aft makes lifting tail harder but
helps get tail down on landing. Keeping controls free. Taxiing technique
with wind. Paying attention at all times while moving; no distractions.
S-turns. Pilot condition. You will find your technique flawless at times
and sub-par at other times.
My own observations:
Despite having learned in and flown mostly taildraggers in the past, I
found my Kitfox IV Speedster to be a handful at first. It was not for
beginners, the way it was set up. I never found out why. The Grove gear
finally tamed it. It is not easy to find an instructor for Kitfoxes. The
main tailwheel instructor I know in our area will not fly it, having tried
one he does not want to add a groundloop to his resume. Experience in a
Champ is not the same, since by contrast you can see well out the front,
it lands slowly, takes lots of control movement, and has very forgiving
gear. A Champ is so docile it makes a Cessna 150 seem hard to land by
comparison. The Kitfox is sensitive on the controls, calling for a light
but authoritative touch. It will do just what you ask it to do, whether
or not you realize what you are asking of it. You will consider a Cessna
to fly like a truck after flying a Kitfox.
You can do it if you make the commitment to develop and practice good
technique on every takeoff and landing; lots of people with varying
experience do it successfully as you can see from the list. If you start
on a suitable airport with a well-designed aircraft, assembled and
maintained properly, practice a lot, keep current, pay attention, and
expand your envelope as your experience increases, you should be OK.
Tricky conditions are, if course, riskier. Even if you stay on runways,
cross-countries can present you with challenging conditions for which you
have to be prepared to handle when you are tired. It is not going to be
as forgiving of slamming it into the ground nor will it jerk itself
straight out of a bad landing like a nosewheel-equipped Cessna will.
JA KF IV Speedster @ O70
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-
=5F-= -- Please Support Your Lists This Month --
=5F-= (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
=5F-
=5F-= November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click on
=5F-= the Contribution link below to find out more about
=5F-= this year's Terrific Free Incentive Gifts!
=5F-
=5F-= List Contribution Web Site:
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=5F-
=5F-= Thank you for your generous support!
=5F-
=5F-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - The Kitfox-List Email Forum -
=5F-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
=5F-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
=5F-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
=5F-= Photoshare, and much much more:
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
=5F-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
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: Everybody ground loops? |
700 hrs in Kitfox - one landing with a flat tire and know ground loops to
date!
Gary
Gary Algate
Classic 4 Jab 2200
Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the addressees.
Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail in error, kindly notify us immediately by
telephone or e-mail and delete the message from your system. The sender
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of
this message which may arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
?This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we have
made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe and happy
Christmas".
John Allen <kitfoxfugit@yahoo.com>
Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
31/12/2008 05:50 PM
Please respond to
kitfox-list@matronics.com
To
kitfox-list@matronics.com
cc
Subject
Kitfox-List: Everybody ground loops?
In response to Paul Folbrecht <paul.folbrecht@veribox.net> who wrote:
> I'm considering buying either a half share or a whole share in a
completed
> Fox (TD). I have no TD time and while becoming taildragger-proficient
is
> appealing to me, ground-looping one is *not*!
>
> So.... assuming I get a GOOD TG endorsement from a GOOD instructor, and
> GOOD training in the Kitfox, honestly, should I =5Fseriously=5F expect to
> ground-loop it at *some* point?
>
> How about this - everybody who's got 50, 100, 200, 500, etc. hours in
> Kitfoxes while never looping raise your hand! :)
The following is just my opinion for what it is worth to try to answer the
question you pose for someone considering transition from heavy nosewheels
to a light taildragger Kitfox. I don't think it is hours that determine
whether a groundloop will occur. I have flown over 5 hours at a time with
only one takeoff and one landing. It seems that there are a number of
factors that are involved, some of which are listed below, not in a
particular order.
1. Design of the aircraft. Width of mains, wider is better (Grove gear is
wider than tube gear on Kitfox). Springiness of gear, stiffness, ability
to absorb shock without bouncing (I found tube gear stiff and bouncy).
Ability to get tail down in flare (difficult in mine, especially with full
flaps). Side area exposed to crosswinds - low on a Kitfox is good.
Visibility over the nose when flaring (none in mine, I use peripheral
vision of the ground plane). Landing speed, slower is better. Speedsters
land faster due to shorter wings and probably the undercambered wing
models (I, II, III) land much slower.
2. Construction of Aircraft. Alignment of wheels (I had to align my tube
gear). Type tires, square shoulder (I had) or round (I have now). Proper
angle of tailwheel. Tailwheel spring slack. Gas line on inside of
firewall that will catch the sole of your shoe when stepping on the brake
(I had to fix that). Type of brakes installed (mine were very weak). Dual
brakes (easier to get an instructor; mine has brakes on LH side only, I
had to learn to fly it from RH side first). Type of tailwheel (I have
never changed mine). Type of prop; the Rotax cannot be idled below 1800;
the Ivoprop I have on it now acts like a speed brake in flatter pitch.
3. Maintenance of Aircraft. Brakes, too good is better but can grab or
nose you over if you apply them hard; too bad won't arrest an incipient
groundloop, sticking can cause one. Tire type and condition; you don't
want a flat. Alignment (of tube gear). Tailwheel condition. Tailwheel
spring (can loosen or break). Tailwheel turning springs and fasteners
condition (failure will leave you without steering). Bungees (if you have
them, you don't want them to break; also be sure you have snare cables
attached). Making sure all control linkages and surfaces are fully
functional.
4. Experience of pilot. Comfort level in the aircraft. Ability to be on
top of it, ahead of it, to make it do what is wanted and not overcontrol
it. Airspeed control; knowing and using appropriate speeds especially in
the area of reverse command over the fence and what is needed for turns
and gusts. Using tailwheel steering until rudder can take over on takeoff
(mine has little rudder authority at first and wants to shoot off to the
left if you lift the tail early). Adding rudder with throttle. Number of
takeoffs and landings, especially recent experience. More make you more in
control. Crosswind technique and experience, amount and strength of wind.
This is needed in mountainous areas where runways are not always oriented
into the prevailing wind. Techniques for gusts. Mountain strips. Type
of surface, hard, soft, grass, dirt, gravel, wet, soft, rough, short,
sloped.
5. Operation. Loaded Weight, heavier lands faster but is not as apt to
"float" if you come in too fast. CG, aft makes lifting tail harder but
helps get tail down on landing. Keeping controls free. Taxiing technique
with wind. Paying attention at all times while moving; no distractions.
S-turns. Pilot condition. You will find your technique flawless at times
and sub-par at other times.
My own observations:
Despite having learned in and flown mostly taildraggers in the past, I
found my Kitfox IV Speedster to be a handful at first. It was not for
beginners, the way it was set up. I never found out why. The Grove gear
finally tamed it. It is not easy to find an instructor for Kitfoxes. The
main tailwheel instructor I know in our area will not fly it, having tried
one he does not want to add a groundloop to his resume. Experience in a
Champ is not the same, since by contrast you can see well out the front,
it lands slowly, takes lots of control movement, and has very forgiving
gear. A Champ is so docile it makes a Cessna 150 seem hard to land by
comparison. The Kitfox is sensitive on the controls, calling for a light
but authoritative touch. It will do just what you ask it to do, whether
or not you realize what you are asking of it. You will consider a Cessna
to fly like a truck after flying a Kitfox.
You can do it if you make the commitment to develop and practice good
technique on every takeoff and landing; lots of people with varying
experience do it successfully as you can see from the list. If you start
on a suitable airport with a well-designed aircraft, assembled and
maintained properly, practice a lot, keep current, pay attention, and
expand your envelope as your experience increases, you should be OK.
Tricky conditions are, if course, riskier. Even if you stay on runways,
cross-countries can present you with challenging conditions for which you
have to be prepared to handle when you are tired. It is not going to be
as forgiving of slamming it into the ground nor will it jerk itself
straight out of a bad landing like a nosewheel-equipped Cessna will.
JA KF IV Speedster @ O70
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-
=5F-= -- Please Support Your Lists This Month --
=5F-= (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
=5F-
=5F-= November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click on
=5F-= the Contribution link below to find out more about
=5F-= this year's Terrific Free Incentive Gifts!
=5F-
=5F-= List Contribution Web Site:
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=5F-
=5F-= Thank you for your generous support!
=5F-
=5F-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - The Kitfox-List Email Forum -
=5F-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
=5F-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
=5F-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
=5F-= Photoshare, and much much more:
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
=5F-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
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! --
|