Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:49 AM - Re: 582 fuel pump (wingman)
2. 05:53 AM - Re: Everybody ground loops? (kirk hull)
3. 06:46 AM - Re: 503 Engine Fogging-OOPS (Tom Jones)
4. 07:21 AM - Re: Everybody ground loops? (n85ae)
5. 07:47 AM - Re: Everybody ground loops? (JetPilot)
6. 09:21 AM - Re: Everybody ground loops? (Paul Franz - Merlin GT)
7. 10:21 AM - Re: Re: Everybody ground loops? (Bob Brennan)
8. 11:18 AM - Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: Re:Everybody ground loops? (Paul Franz - Merlin GT)
9. 12:11 PM - Re: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: Re:Everybody ground loops? (Lynn Matteson)
10. 12:14 PM - Re: Everybody ground loops? (JetPilot)
11. 12:22 PM - Re: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: Re:Everybody ground loops? (Lowell Fitt)
12. 12:44 PM - Re: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: Re:Everybody ground loops? (Bob Brennan)
13. 12:56 PM - Re: Re: Everybody ground loops? (Bob Brennan)
14. 01:03 PM - Re: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: Re:Everybody ground loops? (Bob Brennan)
15. 01:29 PM - Re: Re: Everybody ground loops? (Paul Franz - Merlin GT)
16. 01:47 PM - Ground Loops, not yet (EMAproducts@aol.com)
17. 02:03 PM - this is only a test message (Stan Mills)
18. 02:09 PM - Re: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: Re:Everybody ground loops? (Michael Gibbs)
19. 03:03 PM - Re: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: Re:Everybody ground loops? (Larry Huntley)
20. 03:13 PM - Re: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: Re:Everybody ground loops? (Michael Gibbs)
21. 03:20 PM - Re: Re: skis (R.D.(Ron) Leclerc)
22. 04:03 PM - Re: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: Re:Everybody ground loops? (Bob Brennan)
23. 04:19 PM - carb vents (jridgway)
24. 04:27 PM - Re: 582 fuel pump (Tom Jones)
25. 04:32 PM - Re: carb vents (Tom Jones)
26. 05:09 PM - Converting a Series 5 Vixen to tail dragger (Stan Mills)
27. 05:33 PM - Re: Kitfox-Rhinebeck, off topic (Larry Huntley)
28. 05:34 PM - Re: Everybody ground loops? (n85ae)
29. 06:36 PM - Re: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: Re:Everybody ground loops? (Lynn Matteson)
30. 06:47 PM - Re: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: Re:Everybody ground loops? (Lynn Matteson)
31. 06:49 PM - Re: Re: Everybody ground loops? (Lowell Fitt)
32. 07:07 PM - Re: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: Re:Everybody ground loops? (Lynn Matteson)
33. 07:12 PM - Re: Re: Everybody ground loops? (Lynn Matteson)
34. 07:43 PM - Re: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: Re:Everybody ground loops? (Bob Brennan)
35. 08:04 PM - Kitfox's 25th Anniversary - 1984-2009 (jdmcbean@kitfoxaircraft.com)
36. 08:42 PM - Re: Rhinebeck NY94 (Paul A. Franz, P.E.)
37. 09:28 PM - Re: Re: Rhinebeck NY94 (Bob Brennan)
38. 10:11 PM - Re: [!! SPAM] Re: carb vents (Guy Buchanan)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 582 fuel pump |
I think some of the rotax mechanics on the forum could answer this better.
But it is obvious that the longer the line is, the stiffer it must be.
The best thing is to keep it as short as possible with a hose dedicated to withstand
internal negative pressures.
I am sure your local hose supplier would be able to recommend you a good soultion.
--------
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=221899#221899
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: | Everybody ground loops? |
>From what I have seen ground loops are not an issue for serious pilots.
For those who just stay marginally current and fail stay ahead of the
aircraft however it is a real issue.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Allen
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 1:11 AM
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 _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 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: 503 Engine Fogging-OOPS |
> Take it out through the exhaust port.
Noel, you have been working on that four stroke too long. I finally took the cylinder
off and got that spray tube out of the crankcase.
--------
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=221912#221912
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: Everybody ground loops? |
This is the day for confession's, eh?
I ground looped my Series 5 on pavement, with 8.50x6 tires, on a windy
gusty day. No damage other than to my ego. My hangar neighbors
groundlooped their Luscombe. The Supercub driver in the next row
of hangars from mine ground looped his supercub. Another kitfox
driver I know has groundlooped his three times. My taildragger instructor
groundlooped a Citabria ...
Actually almost every taildragger driver I know who flies frequently has
groundlooped. The only damage that I know of in all the above was to
the luscombe. The other kitfox driver messed up a wheel pant, but
otherwise no other damage.
I think the honest truth is that it's likely if you fly taildraggers that
it will happen to you one day.
On the other hand I've seen a lot of trigears that got nose strut damage
from bad landings as well, particularly C182's. So nothing in flying is
completely without risk.
Regards,
Jeff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221919#221919
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Everybody ground loops? |
Hull insurance rates for Taildraggers are significantly higher than they are for
tricycle gear airplanes. The numbers have bee there for many years, if you
fly a taildragger, you run a much higher risk of damaging your airplane, period.
There is a good reason that the vast majority of airplanes manufactured today
are tricycle gear.
I have flown taildraggers a lot, and never even close to a ground loop. But when
I ordered my Kitfox list, there was no question that I would build it with
tricycle gear. I find the tailwheel to limiting in crosswinds. I can comfortably
land a tricycle gear airplane in much greater crosswinds without the risk
of damaging the airplane than I can a taildragger. I have nothing to prove
and could care less about impressing anyone by flying a taildragger, I want what
works best - Tricycle Gear.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221924#221924
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: Everybody ground loops? |
On Wed, December 31, 2008 7:45 am, JetPilot wrote:
>
> Hull insurance rates for Taildraggers are significantly higher than they are
for
> tricycle gear airplanes. The numbers have bee there for many years, if you fly
a
> taildragger,
I believe you're correct although it might not be so much the gear configuration
as
the intended use and purpose of the aircraft. Thinking about the reasons for selecting
a conventional gear plane vs a tricycle gear the first thing that comes to mind
is
getting more prop clearance. You don't need that on a paved runway. You need it
on
tall grass and gravel and rough runways. Of course there are several more reasons,
most of which point to the intended use is landing and take-offs on rough, short,
and
un-improved runways. So, it might not be the gear selection but rather the aircraft
purpose that represents the risk. One way to compare that is if you looked at
conventional gear aircraft with fancy wheel pants and compared their accident rates
to
those of aircraft of the same type with tricycle gear, I'd be willing to bet that
there wasn't near the difference in hull insurance claims. After all, the difference
is nil when in flight.
> you run a much higher risk of damaging your airplane, period. There is
> a good reason that the vast majority of airplanes manufactured today are tricycle
> gear.
While I agree in concept, you need to be careful developing the defining risk.
While
this is fact when applied to *ALL* pilots and aircraft as a group, it isn't as
relevant to a particular pilot who is accomplished with conventional gear. For
example, select large group of very experienced conventional gear operators and
compare their accident rates with that same group's experience in tricycle aircraft
and probably the difference if any is less than what it is for the public at large.
>
> I have flown taildraggers a lot, and never even close to a ground loop. But
when I
> ordered my Kitfox list, there was no question that I would build it with tricycle
> gear. I find the tailwheel to limiting in crosswinds. I can comfortably land
a
> tricycle gear airplane in much greater crosswinds without the risk of damaging
the
> airplane than I can a taildragger.
That shows that you selected the gear configuration based on the most important
anticipated operating condition too. Greater crosswind capability and comfort was
more
important than propeller clearance.
It would be interesting to look at actual flight test info such as can be found
in the
operator's manual for a C170 vs C172 or a C182 vs a C185. I believe that I once
saw
the comparison for max crosswind capability for the latter comparison. Something
like
15 knots vs 15-20 knots. In both cases, I believe pilots regularly exceed those
numbers anyhow.
> I have nothing to prove and could care less about
> impressing anyone by flying a taildragger, I want what works best - Tricycle
Gear.
There is another factor in the selection too, that is aesthetics. When I look at
a
C-140, I visualize beauty in design. I don't get that feeling when looking at a
Tomahawk or a C-152. Just like I like the looks of a Harley Fatboy far more than
that
of a high performance cafe racer. I like the purpose of my tail dragger selection
better too. Rugged, off airport performance. That purpose is probably far riskier
than
the fact it's a tail dragger.
When that aspect came up during the demo flight of my airplane in Muskegon, Al
Pike
was the pilot and I was just the passenger. He landed the airplane touching down
at
the intersection of intersecting runways lined up in the direction to experience
the
greatest crosswind. He touched down right at the intersection and induced what
you'd
think would be a ground loop, sliding the aircraft on its main gear swinging the
tail
downwind and coming to a complete stop, nose into the wind at a distance less than
the
width of the runway. I was convinced that even a botched landing would be pretty
safe.
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Everybody ground loops? |
Paul,
I am a taildragger driver and much prefer it to the tricycle gear airplanes
I have trained on, but I have to question your statement below in defense of
taildraggers - "more prop clearance". I know it is possible to take off with
the tail still on the ground, and the favored landing is a "3-pointer", but
I think most taildraggers will raise the tail asap on takeoff, for me that's
usually less than 2 seconds into the roll. So for most of my takeoff roll,
most of the time, it is rolling the same as a tricycle gear in terms of prop
clearance.
I can hear your response as "Ah, but you have the choice" and also recall
soft-field training in a tricycle with the yoke in my lap to get the
nosewheel out of the grass/mud asap. So maybe a better point would be that
taildraggers always offer soft-field short-field performance? Also -
wouldn't rolling with the tail down in a taildragger be somewhat
counterproductive due to the large increase in drag due to the high
angle-of-attack and not travelling inline with the thrust vector?
>From a taildragger-lover, on which lady-friends might agree - enquiring
minds want to know...
Bob Brennan - N717GB
ELSA Repairman, inspection rated
1991 UK Model 2 ELSA Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Franz -
Merlin GT
Sent: 31 December 2008 12:21 pm
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Everybody ground loops?
<paul@eucleides.com>
On Wed, December 31, 2008 7:45 am, JetPilot wrote:
>
> Hull insurance rates for Taildraggers are significantly higher than they
are for
> tricycle gear airplanes. The numbers have bee there for many years, if
you fly a
> taildragger,
I believe you're correct although it might not be so much the gear
configuration as
the intended use and purpose of the aircraft. Thinking about the reasons for
selecting
a conventional gear plane vs a tricycle gear the first thing that comes to
mind is
getting more prop clearance. You don't need that on a paved runway. You need
it on
tall grass and gravel and rough runways. Of course there are several more
reasons,
most of which point to the intended use is landing and take-offs on rough,
short, and
un-improved runways. So, it might not be the gear selection but rather the
aircraft
purpose that represents the risk. One way to compare that is if you looked
at
conventional gear aircraft with fancy wheel pants and compared their
accident rates to
those of aircraft of the same type with tricycle gear, I'd be willing to bet
that
there wasn't near the difference in hull insurance claims. After all, the
difference
is nil when in flight.
> you run a much higher risk of damaging your airplane, period. There is
> a good reason that the vast majority of airplanes manufactured today are
tricycle
> gear.
While I agree in concept, you need to be careful developing the defining
risk. While
this is fact when applied to *ALL* pilots and aircraft as a group, it isn't
as
relevant to a particular pilot who is accomplished with conventional gear.
For
example, select large group of very experienced conventional gear operators
and
compare their accident rates with that same group's experience in tricycle
aircraft
and probably the difference if any is less than what it is for the public at
large.
>
> I have flown taildraggers a lot, and never even close to a ground loop.
But when I
> ordered my Kitfox list, there was no question that I would build it with
tricycle
> gear. I find the tailwheel to limiting in crosswinds. I can comfortably
land a
> tricycle gear airplane in much greater crosswinds without the risk of
damaging the
> airplane than I can a taildragger.
That shows that you selected the gear configuration based on the most
important
anticipated operating condition too. Greater crosswind capability and
comfort was more
important than propeller clearance.
It would be interesting to look at actual flight test info such as can be
found in the
operator's manual for a C170 vs C172 or a C182 vs a C185. I believe that I
once saw
the comparison for max crosswind capability for the latter comparison.
Something like
15 knots vs 15-20 knots. In both cases, I believe pilots regularly exceed
those
numbers anyhow.
> I have nothing to prove and could care less about
> impressing anyone by flying a taildragger, I want what works best -
Tricycle Gear.
There is another factor in the selection too, that is aesthetics. When I
look at a
C-140, I visualize beauty in design. I don't get that feeling when looking
at a
Tomahawk or a C-152. Just like I like the looks of a Harley Fatboy far more
than that
of a high performance cafe racer. I like the purpose of my tail dragger
selection
better too. Rugged, off airport performance. That purpose is probably far
riskier than
the fact it's a tail dragger.
When that aspect came up during the demo flight of my airplane in Muskegon,
Al Pike
was the pilot and I was just the passenger. He landed the airplane touching
down at
the intersection of intersecting runways lined up in the direction to
experience the
greatest crosswind. He touched down right at the intersection and induced
what you'd
think would be a ground loop, sliding the aircraft on its main gear swinging
the tail
downwind and coming to a complete stop, nose into the wind at a distance
less than the
width of the runway. I was convinced that even a botched landing would be
pretty safe.
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
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: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: Re:Everybody |
ground loops?
On Wed, December 31, 2008 10:20 am, Bob Brennan wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> I am a taildragger driver and much prefer it to the tricycle gear airplanes
> I have trained on,
Please elaborate. Your reason for choice would interest us all.
> but I have to question your statement below in defense of
> taildraggers - "more prop clearance". I know it is possible to take off with
> the tail still on the ground, and the favored landing is a "3-pointer", but
> I think most taildraggers will raise the tail asap on takeoff, for me that's
> usually less than 2 seconds into the roll. So for most of my takeoff roll,
> most of the time, it is rolling the same as a tricycle gear in terms of prop
> clearance.
How about landing in the rough? You certainly can get more prop clearance. The
same
goes for taxiing. I think that most of the rolling on the ground is other than
the
take-off roll. When you are trying to get to the place you want to do your take-off,
you can taxi with more prop clearance, to keep the prop out of the grass and gravel.
When you pickup gravel nicks in your prop it is right at the beginning of the takeoff
roll. Once you're moving and the tail starts to come up, you're not picking up
as much
gravel. The tail dragger has an advantage at the beginning of the takeoff roll
that
can't be achieved with a tricycle gear airplane. You can also delay raising the
tail
until the main gear starts to lift off, thereby maintaining propeller to ground
clearance. I do agree that extends the takeoff roll.
> I can hear your response as "Ah, but you have the choice" and also recall
> soft-field training in a tricycle with the yoke in my lap to get the
> nosewheel out of the grass/mud asap. So maybe a better point would be that
> taildraggers always offer soft-field short-field performance? Also -
> wouldn't rolling with the tail down in a taildragger be somewhat
> counterproductive due to the large increase in drag due to the high
> angle-of-attack and not travelling inline with the thrust vector?
Agreed. However, as you say, you have the option and you certainly can keep the
prop
up out of the weeds and from picking up gravel at the beginning of the roll.
>
>>From a taildragger-lover, on which lady-friends might agree - enquiring
> minds want to know...
I think there are a lot more options for fun with the small tail dragger. I've
decided
that after owning a Cherokee 160 and a Turbo Arrow for many years. That type of
flying
is more for commuting than for exploring. I do that in a Boeing, nowadays and have
changed my purpose for an airplane.
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
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: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: |
Re:Everybody ground loops?
I gotta get my two cents worth in here...when I flew my Kitfox
taildragger to New York to visit the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome, and
asked if I could land there, they asked me if it was a taildragger
and I told them yes it was, and they said come on in. They had an
incident with a nosegear plane and their insurance company said no
more nose gears, thank you. Besides, a nose gear plane landing at a
field where conventional gear WWI planes are flying? I don't think
so, Al....: )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 596+ hrs
Sensenich 62x46
flying again after rebuild, and new Electroair direct-fire ignition
system;
also building a new pair of snow skis
do not archive
On Dec 31, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Paul Franz - Merlin GT wrote:
> <paul@eucleides.com>
>
> On Wed, December 31, 2008 10:20 am, Bob Brennan wrote:
>> <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> I am a taildragger driver and much prefer it to the tricycle gear
>> airplanes
>> I have trained on,
>
> Please elaborate. Your reason for choice would interest us all.
>
>> but I have to question your statement below in defense of
>> taildraggers - "more prop clearance". I know it is possible to
>> take off with
>> the tail still on the ground, and the favored landing is a "3-
>> pointer", but
>> I think most taildraggers will raise the tail asap on takeoff, for
>> me that's
>> usually less than 2 seconds into the roll. So for most of my
>> takeoff roll,
>> most of the time, it is rolling the same as a tricycle gear in
>> terms of prop
>> clearance.
>
> How about landing in the rough? You certainly can get more prop
> clearance. The same
> goes for taxiing. I think that most of the rolling on the ground is
> other than the
> take-off roll. When you are trying to get to the place you want to
> do your take-off,
> you can taxi with more prop clearance, to keep the prop out of the
> grass and gravel.
> When you pickup gravel nicks in your prop it is right at the
> beginning of the takeoff
> roll. Once you're moving and the tail starts to come up, you're not
> picking up as much
> gravel. The tail dragger has an advantage at the beginning of the
> takeoff roll that
> can't be achieved with a tricycle gear airplane. You can also delay
> raising the tail
> until the main gear starts to lift off, thereby maintaining
> propeller to ground
> clearance. I do agree that extends the takeoff roll.
>
>> I can hear your response as "Ah, but you have the choice" and also
>> recall
>> soft-field training in a tricycle with the yoke in my lap to get the
>> nosewheel out of the grass/mud asap. So maybe a better point would
>> be that
>> taildraggers always offer soft-field short-field performance? Also -
>> wouldn't rolling with the tail down in a taildragger be somewhat
>> counterproductive due to the large increase in drag due to the high
>> angle-of-attack and not travelling inline with the thrust vector?
>
> Agreed. However, as you say, you have the option and you certainly
> can keep the prop
> up out of the weeds and from picking up gravel at the beginning of
> the roll.
>>
>>> From a taildragger-lover, on which lady-friends might agree -
>>> enquiring
>> minds want to know...
>
> I think there are a lot more options for fun with the small tail
> dragger. I've decided
> that after owning a Cherokee 160 and a Turbo Arrow for many years.
> That type of flying
> is more for commuting than for exploring. I do that in a Boeing,
> nowadays and have
> changed my purpose for an airplane.
>
> --
> Paul A. Franz
> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
> Bellevue WA
> 425.241.1618 Cell
>
>
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: Everybody ground loops? |
Paul wrote a very good article addressing some valid points, but it does not change
the reality. A Cessna 140 Taildragger is much more likely to be damaged
in landings than a Cessna 150 Tricycle gear plane. Just check the insurance rates
that are based on many years of accident data if you doubt this fact.
As far as ground loops in ktifoxes, just do a search here on Matronics on " Ground
Loop " and see how many Kitfoxes have had major damage due to being ground
loops - Its a common way to destroy or do major damage to a Kitfox, and they
were all taildraggers. Many more Kitfoxes have been in ground loops and been
lucky enough to avoid damage, its a roll of the dice....
As far as limitations, I and the vast majority of people never fly off of grass
so high that need the extra prop clearance of a taildrgger. The limitation
that we VERY OFTEN run into is crosswinds, and crosswinds are much better handled
by a tricycle gear airplane. With a tricycle gear airplane, I can fly on
many more days of the year than I can with a taildragger when there is a significant
crosswind. I have owned both taildraggers and Nosewheel airplanes, and
seen the limitations and benefits of each. Tricycle gear won hands down when
it was time to chose which one would be on my Kitfox.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222005#222005
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: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: |
Re:Everybody ground loops?
Paul Franz says:
> I think there are a lot more options for fun with the small tail dragger.
> I've decided
> that after owning a Cherokee 160 and a Turbo Arrow for many years. That
> type of flying
> is more for commuting than for exploring. I do that in a Boeing, nowadays
> and have
> changed my purpose for an airplane.
I couldn't agree more with this statement.
It reminds me of the time four Kitfoxes were on the way to the annual
informal Dichondra Field fly-in. I was preparing to depart for our assemble
point when an RV-4 pilot asked me if I was going to the fly-in and asked to
tag along as he didn't know where it was - a commercial dichondra farm
somewhere in California's central valley. Sure why not. After hooking up
with the others at Rancho Murietta it was off. Once airborn, however, the
Kitfoxes decided to follow the river at tree top level and the poor RV guy
orbited overhead with nothing else to do but watch us having our type of
fun.
This obviously has nothing to do with tailwheel vs. nose wheel, but it does
describe pretty well that there are purposes for the various types of
aircraft. I sometimes wonder why my Lancair friend enjoys his flying so
much as all he can see at altitude is his panel and a gray haze below him as
he flys at his 250 kts. Maybe that is why he wanted a fast airplane,
because in his experience flying is pretty boring, but owning a screamer is
big-time ego food.
I guess there is no bad reason for choosing one configuration over another
whether it be prop clearance, the airplanes intended use, high insurance
premiums or fear of cross winds. It just has to be a personal choice we
make and then live with.
Lowell Fitt
Cameron Park, CA
Model IV-1200 R-912 UL
Building
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: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: |
Re:Everybody ground loops?
You're asking an old(er) pilot to elaborate!? Here come the stories... (as I
type this I see Lynn has already added one of his own<g>)
How do I prefer thee taildragger? Let me count the ways...
1. I keep my KF2 on a trailer in my barn and fly from a grass field (8N7)
about 5 miles away. I am the only plane "based" there, although others
visit, and the only open runway is a bit rough to say the least. Taxiing can
be bone-jarring but since the weight is off my wheels within seconds and I
am off the ground within 300 ft it's not bad at all. I couldn't imagine
bouncing along for 1000ft in a C-172, although I have done just that.
2. As my recent BFR I did a couple of hours type-training in a 172, which
included several (6) short-field grass strip visits where I got to practice
full throttle with brakes, yoke in your gut (sucked in), 40* flaps,
tight-rope balancing on the mains to "keep the weight off the nosewheel",
and then once off flying the remaining runway "in ground effect". And I'm
sorry, I've done ground effect in Cherokees and Warriors, and a Skyhawk does
not do ground effect with those high wings. All the while I was thinking
"can't wait to visit here in my Kitfox".
3. I took a ladyfriend from 8N7 to the mile-long paved runway where I fly
the 172 for a $100 ($5 in a KF, plus the price of the burger) hamburger and
was even impressed myself at how smooth the landing was and how fast we got
off the pavement. The only disadvantage was the long taxi times given how
little runway I used. The attention from other pilots during the taxi made
it worthwhile however. Pretty lady, pretty airplane, life is good sometimes.
4. I have made a one-way(slight slope) runway behind my house that is only
400ft of babies-butt smooth grass but has 100ft overrun (neighbor) on one
end and 50ft on the other. I still don't feel confident enough yet to try it
but 8N7 has white painted tires every 200ft so I can gauge my takeoffs and
landings accurately for practice. Kids - don't try this at home, or in a
tricycle gear.
5. The "oleo strut" on rentals/trainers seems to be the thing that is always
failing or about to fail, with 3 Skyhawks to choose from it pays to know
which has had it's front wheel repaired/replaced most recently. Not a
problem I have to worry about with my KF2. BTW I see a lot of complaints
about failed tail leafsprings on this list, in the UK it was mandatory to
mount a Maule tailwheel assembly as the Denney one was considered
unsuitable. I have never had a problem.
I could go on, but that's enough for now. And please note - these are my
personal preferences according to my personal circumstances, not
who's-is-bigger-or-better.
Bob Brennan - N717GB
ELSA Repairman, inspection rated
1991 UK Model 2 ELSA Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Franz -
Merlin GT
Sent: 31 December 2008 2:15 pm
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was:
Re:Everybody ground loops?
<paul@eucleides.com>
On Wed, December 31, 2008 10:20 am, Bob Brennan wrote:
<matronics@bob.brennan.name>
>
> Paul,
>
> I am a taildragger driver and much prefer it to the tricycle gear
airplanes
> I have trained on,
Please elaborate. Your reason for choice would interest us all.
> but I have to question your statement below in defense of
> taildraggers - "more prop clearance". I know it is possible to take off
with
> the tail still on the ground, and the favored landing is a "3-pointer",
but
> I think most taildraggers will raise the tail asap on takeoff, for me
that's
> usually less than 2 seconds into the roll. So for most of my takeoff roll,
> most of the time, it is rolling the same as a tricycle gear in terms of
prop
> clearance.
How about landing in the rough? You certainly can get more prop clearance.
The same
goes for taxiing. I think that most of the rolling on the ground is other
than the
take-off roll. When you are trying to get to the place you want to do your
take-off,
you can taxi with more prop clearance, to keep the prop out of the grass and
gravel.
When you pickup gravel nicks in your prop it is right at the beginning of
the takeoff
roll. Once you're moving and the tail starts to come up, you're not picking
up as much
gravel. The tail dragger has an advantage at the beginning of the takeoff
roll that
can't be achieved with a tricycle gear airplane. You can also delay raising
the tail
until the main gear starts to lift off, thereby maintaining propeller to
ground
clearance. I do agree that extends the takeoff roll.
> I can hear your response as "Ah, but you have the choice" and also recall
> soft-field training in a tricycle with the yoke in my lap to get the
> nosewheel out of the grass/mud asap. So maybe a better point would be that
> taildraggers always offer soft-field short-field performance? Also -
> wouldn't rolling with the tail down in a taildragger be somewhat
> counterproductive due to the large increase in drag due to the high
> angle-of-attack and not travelling inline with the thrust vector?
Agreed. However, as you say, you have the option and you certainly can keep
the prop
up out of the weeds and from picking up gravel at the beginning of the roll.
>
>>From a taildragger-lover, on which lady-friends might agree - enquiring
> minds want to know...
I think there are a lot more options for fun with the small tail dragger.
I've decided
that after owning a Cherokee 160 and a Turbo Arrow for many years. That type
of flying
is more for commuting than for exploring. I do that in a Boeing, nowadays
and have
changed my purpose for an airplane.
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
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: Everybody ground loops? |
> I have owned both taildraggers and Nosewheel airplanes, and seen the
limitations and benefits of each. Tricycle gear won hands down when it was
time to chose which one would be on my Kitfox.
That's why there are more tricycle gear airplanes out there than tailwheel,
most people's flying skills and requirements are better served by tricycle
gear. Same thing with gear-shift cars, most US cars are automatic
transmissions, but give me a roadster with 5 on the floor any day for sheer
driving fun. Different horses for different courses.
> As far as ground loops in ktifoxes, just do a search here on Matronics on
" Ground Loop " and see how many Kitfoxes have had major damage due to being
ground loops... and they were all taildraggers.
Do a search for "front wheel collapse" and you won't find any taildraggers
in there either! (meant as a joke Mike, but duh)
Anyone have real data on insurance rates? I am paying just over $1000/yr for
full hull insurance and 1/2m$ liability with $100k for a passenger, from
Falcon. Obviously I did not quote on non-taildragger but does anyone have a
similar non-taildragger policy to compare? Mike do you have insurance and
what are you paying for what coverage if you don't mind my asking? I would
be interested to know.
Bob Brennan - N717GB
ELSA Repairman, inspection rated
1991 UK Model 2 ELSA Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JetPilot
Sent: 31 December 2008 3:14 pm
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Everybody ground loops?
Paul wrote a very good article addressing some valid points, but it does not
change the reality. A Cessna 140 Taildragger is much more likely to be
damaged in landings than a Cessna 150 Tricycle gear plane. Just check the
insurance rates that are based on many years of accident data if you doubt
this fact.
As far as ground loops in ktifoxes, just do a search here on Matronics on "
Ground Loop " and see how many Kitfoxes have had major damage due to being
ground loops - Its a common way to destroy or do major damage to a Kitfox,
and they were all taildraggers. Many more Kitfoxes have been in ground
loops and been lucky enough to avoid damage, its a roll of the dice....
As far as limitations, I and the vast majority of people never fly off of
grass so high that need the extra prop clearance of a taildrgger. The
limitation that we VERY OFTEN run into is crosswinds, and crosswinds are
much better handled by a tricycle gear airplane. With a tricycle gear
airplane, I can fly on many more days of the year than I can with a
taildragger when there is a significant crosswind. I have owned both
taildraggers and Nosewheel airplanes, and seen the limitations and benefits
of each. Tricycle gear won hands down when it was time to chose which one
would be on my Kitfox.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you
could have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222005#222005
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: |
Re:Everybody ground loops?
I had the same experience at Old Rhinebeck just a few months ago, although I
hadn't flown in and was asking if I could for next year. Taildraggers only,
like the old sign on the treehouse "no girls allowed". And there's no
beating the feeling of the crowds thinking you're part of the show - I'll
bet you slipped it in right in front of the stands didn't you Lynn?
Do not archive
Bob Brennan - N717GB
ELSA Repairman, inspection rated
1991 UK Model 2 ELSA Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: 31 December 2008 3:11 pm
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was:
Re:Everybody ground loops?
I gotta get my two cents worth in here...when I flew my Kitfox
taildragger to New York to visit the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome, and
asked if I could land there, they asked me if it was a taildragger
and I told them yes it was, and they said come on in. They had an
incident with a nosegear plane and their insurance company said no
more nose gears, thank you. Besides, a nose gear plane landing at a
field where conventional gear WWI planes are flying? I don't think
so, Al....: )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 596+ hrs
Sensenich 62x46
flying again after rebuild, and new Electroair direct-fire ignition
system;
also building a new pair of snow skis
do not archive
On Dec 31, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Paul Franz - Merlin GT wrote:
> <paul@eucleides.com>
>
> On Wed, December 31, 2008 10:20 am, Bob Brennan wrote:
>> <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> I am a taildragger driver and much prefer it to the tricycle gear
>> airplanes
>> I have trained on,
>
> Please elaborate. Your reason for choice would interest us all.
>
>> but I have to question your statement below in defense of
>> taildraggers - "more prop clearance". I know it is possible to
>> take off with
>> the tail still on the ground, and the favored landing is a "3-
>> pointer", but
>> I think most taildraggers will raise the tail asap on takeoff, for
>> me that's
>> usually less than 2 seconds into the roll. So for most of my
>> takeoff roll,
>> most of the time, it is rolling the same as a tricycle gear in
>> terms of prop
>> clearance.
>
> How about landing in the rough? You certainly can get more prop
> clearance. The same
> goes for taxiing. I think that most of the rolling on the ground is
> other than the
> take-off roll. When you are trying to get to the place you want to
> do your take-off,
> you can taxi with more prop clearance, to keep the prop out of the
> grass and gravel.
> When you pickup gravel nicks in your prop it is right at the
> beginning of the takeoff
> roll. Once you're moving and the tail starts to come up, you're not
> picking up as much
> gravel. The tail dragger has an advantage at the beginning of the
> takeoff roll that
> can't be achieved with a tricycle gear airplane. You can also delay
> raising the tail
> until the main gear starts to lift off, thereby maintaining
> propeller to ground
> clearance. I do agree that extends the takeoff roll.
>
>> I can hear your response as "Ah, but you have the choice" and also
>> recall
>> soft-field training in a tricycle with the yoke in my lap to get the
>> nosewheel out of the grass/mud asap. So maybe a better point would
>> be that
>> taildraggers always offer soft-field short-field performance? Also -
>> wouldn't rolling with the tail down in a taildragger be somewhat
>> counterproductive due to the large increase in drag due to the high
>> angle-of-attack and not travelling inline with the thrust vector?
>
> Agreed. However, as you say, you have the option and you certainly
> can keep the prop
> up out of the weeds and from picking up gravel at the beginning of
> the roll.
>>
>>> From a taildragger-lover, on which lady-friends might agree -
>>> enquiring
>> minds want to know...
>
> I think there are a lot more options for fun with the small tail
> dragger. I've decided
> that after owning a Cherokee 160 and a Turbo Arrow for many years.
> That type of flying
> is more for commuting than for exploring. I do that in a Boeing,
> nowadays and have
> changed my purpose for an airplane.
>
> --
> Paul A. Franz
> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
> Bellevue WA
> 425.241.1618 Cell
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Everybody ground loops? |
On Wed, December 31, 2008 12:14 pm, JetPilot wrote:
>
> Paul wrote a very good article addressing some valid points, but it does not
change
> the reality. A Cessna 140 Taildragger is much more likely to be damaged in landings
> than a Cessna 150 Tricycle gear plane. Just check the insurance rates that are
based
> on many years of accident data if you doubt this fact.
I have no doubt that you're right. However, for many of us, the perceived advantages
outweigh the perceived risk. Besides, when I look at a C140, it just looks like
an
airplane should look. I love the slope from the peak at the leading edge of the
wings
to the tail. I occasionally rent a 1946 C140. It has the original mohair interior
and
the ring on a chain you pull to start it. You can spin it around on a dime. It's
not
very powerful though and it always seems like such a struggle to get it airborne.
The
owners don't want you taking off on the paved runway as they feel it is safer on
the
grass. At my experience level, I don't agree since the grass runway is sort of
a
sequence of rolling hills you bounce your way through while it gets airborne.
> As far as ground loops in ktifoxes, just do a search here on Matronics on "
Ground
> Loop " and see how many Kitfoxes have had major damage due to being ground loops
-
> Its a common way to destroy or do major damage to a Kitfox, and they were all
> taildraggers. Many more Kitfoxes have been in ground loops and been lucky enough
to
> avoid damage, its a roll of the dice....
I'd say your recommendation is to get a your Kitfox with tricycle gear. That would
be
based on higher probability of severe damage and hence higher hull insurance cost
together with being a little more capable of handling crosswinds, especially gusty
ones.
> As far as limitations, I and the vast majority of people never fly off of grass
so
> high that need the extra prop clearance of a taildrgger.
I would bet that is true. But what about the destination that might not even be
an
airfield? I want to land in the wheat stubble on a farm in Eastern Washington or
on
the gravel banks along the Snake River or on a mountain ridge in high altitude
Nevada
in the sage brush as destinations. I think the big tires and rugged landing gear
on my
Merlin are ideal for that. It has some characteristics that differ from a Kitfox,
it
has a lower stall speed, takes off and lands in a shorter distance and has a much
lower wing loading so it is rough riding in even light turbulence, flies slower
and
has a lower cruise speed with the same power setting. The design is somewhat more
rugged but far less refined than the KF. The wings are removable but far from
convenient and even with two guys, you have your hands full doing so.
> The limitation that we VERY
> OFTEN run into is crosswinds, and crosswinds are much better handled by a tricycle
> gear airplane. With a tricycle gear airplane, I can fly on many more days of
the
> year than I can with a taildragger when there is a significant crosswind.
Around here, the limitation to flying is more often below minimums for VFR than
it is
crosswinds. So you probably wouldn't weigh crosswind capability here as high as
in a
vicinity that has prevailing higher wind velocities.
> I have
> owned both taildraggers and Nosewheel airplanes, and seen the limitations and
benefits
> of each. Tricycle gear won hands down when it was time to chose which one would
be on
> my Kitfox.
A wise choice, considering safety and your purposes. You get to fly more and have
lower insurance cost.
Being the idiot I am, I have no hull insurance, feel a great deal of pride in flying
a
tail dragger, like the looks better and purposely choose destinations for exploring,
hiking, picture taking and fishing that I could have never taken my Turbo Arrow.
I get
thrills out of doing a circular takeoff on a sandy beach or gravel bar and landing
in
the deep soft powdery dirt in the wheat stubble in Eastern Washington. There you
don't
worry much about a crosswind either, point the nose into the direction of the wind
and
go that way. I would be willing to guess that flying off floats is probably even
higher risk than as a tail dragger but I plan on doing that too. It might be easier
to
switch from floats to wheels in a conventional configuration too.
This is a great thread. I hope to hear more preferences and experiences. Gets me
excited just thinking about it!
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
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: | Ground Loops, not yet |
As an old instructor with several thousand hours in taildraggers from
Aeronca C-3 to DC-3 here are my comments. This is just my opinion
Anybody is susceptible to a ground loop. However preventing them is simple
in most cases. Training, training and practice, practice! First find an
instructor that is not only current in tailwheels, but has flown a variety of
them. If one has 1000 hours in a KitFox that does not make him an excellent
tailwheel instructor, how much has he instructed in the KitFox ? Flying PIC and
instructing are two different stories. The more versatile experience the
instructor has in a variety of aircraft the more "deviations" from standard he
has experienced. Talk to people, ask former students of his that fly
tailwheels, and very important have a talk with the instructor prior to starting
flying with him. If the instructor doesn't start out by explaining the
aerodynamic influences of the attitude of the aircraft & "P" factor you better
go
elsewhere. IF you do not have an excellent understanding of the forces acting
on the aircraft from the minute the throttle goes above idle you will not
understand why the aircraft reacts as it does. For those of you that have flown
a Pitts, even knowing what is going to happen still does not prepare you for
the rapidity of how fast it happens! Get a GOOD instructor, study and have
a good understanding of what will happen with different attitudes and plenty
of training You will enjoy taildraggers as I have for the last 48 years, my
first one was a Cessna 140 and many many since and I still love them.
Sometimes it may just not be your day, a blown tire, brake failure, student
touching down a little to much out of alignment etc. However practice makes
perfect, as much as possible in aviation. So far I still say: there are those
who
have and those who will, I just try to keep that out of the log. Besides,
it is not a reportable error is it??? Still instructing in a Super Cub
occasionally and loving every minute of it. Again this is just my opinion!
Elbie Mendenhall
EM Aviation
_www.riteangle.com_ (http://www.riteangle.com)
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | this is only a test message |
this is a test
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: |
Re:Everybody ground loops?
Lynn sez:
>...when I flew my Kitfox taildragger to New York to visit the Old
>Rhinebeck Aerodrome...they asked me if it was a taildragger and I
>told them yes it was, and they said come on in. They had an incident
>with a nosegear plane and their insurance company said no more nose
>gears, thank you.
I find that very hard to swallow (but I'll admit that the
taildraggers just seem "right" at a place like Old Rhinebeck).
That's like saying they had a problem with an airplane that had
upholstered seats so now you have to sit on a wood plank. :-)
>Besides, a nose gear plane landing at a field where conventional
>gear WWI planes are flying?
There's nothing conventional about taildraggers. If "conventional"
refers to the origins of powered flight, the earliest aircraft had
skids or tricycle or even quad wheel arrangements for the first
several years. On the other hand, if the term refers to what is most
common, that would surely be tricycle gear airplanes in this day and
age. Maybe its just the conventional use of the term "conventional,"
which would, of course, be taildraggers. :-)
Mike G.
N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster
Phoenix, AZ
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: |
Re:Everybody ground loops?
Mike,
You ever been into Rhinebeck? It is basically a slightly modified pasture
with variations up and down probably 20'. Innteresting. I probably wouldn't
go in there with anything that lands over 40mph. Larry Huntley
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gibbs" <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was:
Re:Everybody ground loops?
>
> Lynn sez:
>
>>...when I flew my Kitfox taildragger to New York to visit the Old
>>Rhinebeck Aerodrome...they asked me if it was a taildragger and I
>>told them yes it was, and they said come on in. They had an incident
>>with a nosegear plane and their insurance company said no more nose
>>gears, thank you.
>
> I find that very hard to swallow (but I'll admit that the
> taildraggers just seem "right" at a place like Old Rhinebeck).
> That's like saying they had a problem with an airplane that had
> upholstered seats so now you have to sit on a wood plank. :-)
>
>>Besides, a nose gear plane landing at a field where conventional
>>gear WWI planes are flying?
>
> There's nothing conventional about taildraggers. If "conventional"
> refers to the origins of powered flight, the earliest aircraft had
> skids or tricycle or even quad wheel arrangements for the first
> several years. On the other hand, if the term refers to what is most
> common, that would surely be tricycle gear airplanes in this day and
> age. Maybe its just the conventional use of the term "conventional,"
> which would, of course, be taildraggers. :-)
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster
> Phoenix, AZ
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
8:44 AM
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: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: |
Re:Everybody ground loops?
Yes, I have been there. I agree, a Kitfox is the biggest, heaviest
thing I'd take in there!
Mike G.
N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200, Speedster
Phoenix, AZ
On Dec 31, 2008, at 4:02 PM, "Larry Huntley" <asq@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> <asq@roadrunner.com>
>
> Mike,
> You ever been into Rhinebeck? It is basically a slightly modified
> pasture with variations up and down probably 20'. Innteresting. I
> probably wouldn't go in there with anything that lands over
> 40mph. Larry Huntley
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Gibbs" <MichaelGibbs@cox.net
> >
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 5:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear,
> was: Re:Everybody ground loops?
>
>
>> >
>>
>> Lynn sez:
>>
>>> ...when I flew my Kitfox taildragger to New York to visit the Old
>>> Rhinebeck Aerodrome...they asked me if it was a taildragger and I
>>> told them yes it was, and they said come on in. They had an incident
>>> with a nosegear plane and their insurance company said no more nose
>>> gears, thank you.
>>
>> I find that very hard to swallow (but I'll admit that the
>> taildraggers just seem "right" at a place like Old Rhinebeck).
>> That's like saying they had a problem with an airplane that had
>> upholstered seats so now you have to sit on a wood plank. :-)
>>
>>> Besides, a nose gear plane landing at a field where conventional
>>> gear WWI planes are flying?
>>
>> There's nothing conventional about taildraggers. If "conventional"
>> refers to the origins of powered flight, the earliest aircraft had
>> skids or tricycle or even quad wheel arrangements for the first
>> several years. On the other hand, if the term refers to what is most
>> common, that would surely be tricycle gear airplanes in this day and
>> age. Maybe its just the conventional use of the term "conventional,"
>> which would, of course, be taildraggers. :-)
>>
>> Mike G.
>> N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster
>> Phoenix, AZ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> 8:44 AM
>
>
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 |
|
Thanks Kirk...
What size is the angle... looks quite heavy? Do you have any more photos?
Thanks... Ron
> 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
>
>
> 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
>>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: |
Re:Everybody ground loops?
Here's a shot down the flightline at Old Rhinebeck a few months ago. The
Fokker Triplane is a replica but is fun to watch flying. They also have a
Wright Flyer and Bleriot from 1910, both also replicas but I've seen an
original 1910 Bleriot fly at the Shuttleworth Collection in the UK. Don't
get me wrong, I will drool equally over a new glass-cockpit LSA!
Do not archive
Bob Brennan - N717GB
ELSA Repairman, inspection rated
1991 UK Model 2 ELSA Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Huntley
Sent: 31 December 2008 6:03 pm
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was:
Re:Everybody ground loops?
Mike,
You ever been into Rhinebeck? It is basically a slightly modified pasture
with variations up and down probably 20'. Innteresting. I probably wouldn't
go in there with anything that lands over 40mph. Larry Huntley
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gibbs" <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was:
Re:Everybody ground loops?
>
> Lynn sez:
>
>>...when I flew my Kitfox taildragger to New York to visit the Old
>>Rhinebeck Aerodrome...they asked me if it was a taildragger and I
>>told them yes it was, and they said come on in. They had an incident
>>with a nosegear plane and their insurance company said no more nose
>>gears, thank you.
>
> I find that very hard to swallow (but I'll admit that the
> taildraggers just seem "right" at a place like Old Rhinebeck).
> That's like saying they had a problem with an airplane that had
> upholstered seats so now you have to sit on a wood plank. :-)
>
>>Besides, a nose gear plane landing at a field where conventional
>>gear WWI planes are flying?
>
> There's nothing conventional about taildraggers. If "conventional"
> refers to the origins of powered flight, the earliest aircraft had
> skids or tricycle or even quad wheel arrangements for the first
> several years. On the other hand, if the term refers to what is most
> common, that would surely be tricycle gear airplanes in this day and
> age. Maybe its just the conventional use of the term "conventional,"
> which would, of course, be taildraggers. :-)
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster
> Phoenix, AZ
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
8:44 AM
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I was just looking at the vent lines on each side of my 582 carbs. Both carbs are
'T' into a common line which goes out and down from the engine compartment.
I assume this was done to prevent any fires in case of overflow. HOWEVER...I
remember reading in a earlier thread that it is not a good idea since now both
carbs will have equal air pressure and could screw up carb tuning...Thoughts
????? thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222074#222074
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 582 fuel pump |
I'm using 1/4" reinforced rubber gas line. It is pretty stiff stuff. That is what
the previous owner had on the engine.What line is recommended C and is there
a maximum length?
Pat Reilly
Mod 3 582 Rebuild
Pat, the Rotax installation manual says the fuel pump pulse line should be no longer
than 20 inches. As you know from my previous post, I had serious fuel pump
weeping problems with a 22 inch pulse line. My opinion is: try to keep the
line shorter than 12 inches.
I use the "Pulse line from aircraft spruce.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/pulseline.php
Fuel system is in section 15 in the Rotax installation manual.
http://www.rotax-owner.com/manuals/d00287.pdf
--------
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=222079#222079
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I was just looking at the vent lines on each side of my 582 carbs. Both carbs are
'T' into a common line which goes out and down from the engine compartment.
I assume this was done to prevent any fires in case of overflow. HOWEVER...I
remember reading in a earlier thread that it is not a good idea since now both
carbs will have equal air pressure and could screw up carb tuning...Thoughts
????? thanks
It seems to me there is a Rotax or maybe an old Skystar service bulletin that says
"Thou shalt not alter those Bing Carb vent lines".
--------
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=222081#222081
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Converting a Series 5 Vixen to tail dragger |
Does anyone have any information about converting a Series 5 Vixen from
nose gear to tail dragger? Has it been done before? The small nose
gear on the Vixen really limits where you can land.
Stan Mills
Bozeman, Mt
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox-Rhinebeck, off topic |
Be fun though. I'd love to take my B75L Funk in there this summer. ;o)
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gibbs" <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was:
Re:Everybody ground loops?
>
> Yes, I have been there. I agree, a Kitfox is the biggest, heaviest
> thing I'd take in there!
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200, Speedster
> Phoenix, AZ
>
>
> On Dec 31, 2008, at 4:02 PM, "Larry Huntley" <asq@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
>> <asq@roadrunner.com>
>>
>> Mike,
>> You ever been into Rhinebeck? It is basically a slightly modified
>> pasture with variations up and down probably 20'. Innteresting. I
>> probably wouldn't go in there with anything that lands over
>> 40mph. Larry Huntley
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Gibbs" <MichaelGibbs@cox.net
>> >
>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 5:08 PM
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear,
>> was: Re:Everybody ground loops?
>>
>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> Lynn sez:
>>>
>>>> ...when I flew my Kitfox taildragger to New York to visit the Old
>>>> Rhinebeck Aerodrome...they asked me if it was a taildragger and I
>>>> told them yes it was, and they said come on in. They had an incident
>>>> with a nosegear plane and their insurance company said no more nose
>>>> gears, thank you.
>>>
>>> I find that very hard to swallow (but I'll admit that the
>>> taildraggers just seem "right" at a place like Old Rhinebeck).
>>> That's like saying they had a problem with an airplane that had
>>> upholstered seats so now you have to sit on a wood plank. :-)
>>>
>>>> Besides, a nose gear plane landing at a field where conventional
>>>> gear WWI planes are flying?
>>>
>>> There's nothing conventional about taildraggers. If "conventional"
>>> refers to the origins of powered flight, the earliest aircraft had
>>> skids or tricycle or even quad wheel arrangements for the first
>>> several years. On the other hand, if the term refers to what is most
>>> common, that would surely be tricycle gear airplanes in this day and
>>> age. Maybe its just the conventional use of the term "conventional,"
>>> which would, of course, be taildraggers. :-)
>>>
>>> Mike G.
>>> N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster
>>> Phoenix, AZ
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> ---
>> ---
>> ---
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>> 8:44 AM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
8:44 AM
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Everybody ground loops? |
I've only flown taildraggers for the past 6-7 years, except a month ago
I flew a Diamond DA20. It's in the blood, you can't really discuss the
pro's and con's of this versus that. If you fly a taildragger, you'll figure
out that you either like them or you don't. I love mine, I don't hate
trikes by any means, but the Kitfox with the wheel in the back is the
one I like best.
Maybe I'm just wierd, but they're what I like so that's what I fly. I
get a feeling of great satisfaction, out of every squirrely rudder pedaling
landing, and wouldn't trade it for anything. Especially if it's on a muddy
unpaved runway.
I think if I were flying a plane like I drive a car, to get from here to there
day in and day out, I'd prefer a low wing trike. But for fun, which is
what all my flying is, I greatly like high wing tailwheel's.
Regards,
Jeff Hays
Series-5 IO-240B Taildragger
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222095#222095
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: |
Re:Everybody ground loops?
Nah, I got there at about 8 am...no crowd (damn!)...and just flew in
from the north end, following the slight bend in the runway, missed
the big flat rock that sticks up about, what, 3 inches?, and taxied
to the far end....no problem. I had to get out of there before 10 am
or stay until after 5 pm, so I headed back to Kingston, across the
river, and drove back later for the show.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 596+ hrs
Sensenich 62x46
flying again after rebuild, and new Electroair direct-fire ignition
system;
also building a new pair of snow skis
do not archive
On Dec 31, 2008, at 4:02 PM, Bob Brennan wrote:
> <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
>
> I had the same experience at Old Rhinebeck just a few months ago,
> although I
> hadn't flown in and was asking if I could for next year.
> Taildraggers only,
> like the old sign on the treehouse "no girls allowed". And there's no
> beating the feeling of the crowds thinking you're part of the show
> - I'll
> bet you slipped it in right in front of the stands didn't you Lynn?
>
> Do not archive
> Bob Brennan - N717GB
> ELSA Repairman, inspection rated
> 1991 UK Model 2 ELSA Kitfox
> Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> Wrightsville Pa
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn
> Matteson
> Sent: 31 December 2008 3:11 pm
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle
> gear, was:
> Re:Everybody ground loops?
>
>
> I gotta get my two cents worth in here...when I flew my Kitfox
> taildragger to New York to visit the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome, and
> asked if I could land there, they asked me if it was a taildragger
> and I told them yes it was, and they said come on in. They had an
> incident with a nosegear plane and their insurance company said no
> more nose gears, thank you. Besides, a nose gear plane landing at a
> field where conventional gear WWI planes are flying? I don't think
> so, Al....: )
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 596+ hrs
> Sensenich 62x46
> flying again after rebuild, and new Electroair direct-fire ignition
> system;
> also building a new pair of snow skis
> do not archive
>
>
> On Dec 31, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Paul Franz - Merlin GT wrote:
>
>> <paul@eucleides.com>
>>
>> On Wed, December 31, 2008 10:20 am, Bob Brennan wrote:
>>> <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
>>>
>>> Paul,
>>>
>>> I am a taildragger driver and much prefer it to the tricycle gear
>>> airplanes
>>> I have trained on,
>>
>> Please elaborate. Your reason for choice would interest us all.
>>
>>> but I have to question your statement below in defense of
>>> taildraggers - "more prop clearance". I know it is possible to
>>> take off with
>>> the tail still on the ground, and the favored landing is a "3-
>>> pointer", but
>>> I think most taildraggers will raise the tail asap on takeoff, for
>>> me that's
>>> usually less than 2 seconds into the roll. So for most of my
>>> takeoff roll,
>>> most of the time, it is rolling the same as a tricycle gear in
>>> terms of prop
>>> clearance.
>>
>> How about landing in the rough? You certainly can get more prop
>> clearance. The same
>> goes for taxiing. I think that most of the rolling on the ground is
>> other than the
>> take-off roll. When you are trying to get to the place you want to
>> do your take-off,
>> you can taxi with more prop clearance, to keep the prop out of the
>> grass and gravel.
>> When you pickup gravel nicks in your prop it is right at the
>> beginning of the takeoff
>> roll. Once you're moving and the tail starts to come up, you're not
>> picking up as much
>> gravel. The tail dragger has an advantage at the beginning of the
>> takeoff roll that
>> can't be achieved with a tricycle gear airplane. You can also delay
>> raising the tail
>> until the main gear starts to lift off, thereby maintaining
>> propeller to ground
>> clearance. I do agree that extends the takeoff roll.
>>
>>> I can hear your response as "Ah, but you have the choice" and also
>>> recall
>>> soft-field training in a tricycle with the yoke in my lap to get the
>>> nosewheel out of the grass/mud asap. So maybe a better point would
>>> be that
>>> taildraggers always offer soft-field short-field performance? Also -
>>> wouldn't rolling with the tail down in a taildragger be somewhat
>>> counterproductive due to the large increase in drag due to the high
>>> angle-of-attack and not travelling inline with the thrust vector?
>>
>> Agreed. However, as you say, you have the option and you certainly
>> can keep the prop
>> up out of the weeds and from picking up gravel at the beginning of
>> the roll.
>>>
>>>> From a taildragger-lover, on which lady-friends might agree -
>>>> enquiring
>>> minds want to know...
>>
>> I think there are a lot more options for fun with the small tail
>> dragger. I've decided
>> that after owning a Cherokee 160 and a Turbo Arrow for many years.
>> That type of flying
>> is more for commuting than for exploring. I do that in a Boeing,
>> nowadays and have
>> changed my purpose for an airplane.
>>
>> --
>> Paul A. Franz
>> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
>> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
>> Bellevue WA
>> 425.241.1618 Cell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: |
Re:Everybody ground loops?
I found the term "conventional" rather strange too, when I first
heard it applied to taildraggers. At first I thought the book "Taming
the taildragger" was referring to nose gear when they mentioned
"conventional gear", but I was wrong. For some reason this tag has
stuck, even though most gear nowadays is the nose gear.
Apparently Rhinebeck...according to the guy who walked the field with
me the day before I flew in there.....had a nose gear come in there
and being the field that it is, with a rock or two here and there,
and slightly undulating, and being grass, the plane bent, broke, or
otherwise hurt the nose wheel, and thus the rule.
So THAT'S the reason for the wooden planks, eh? : )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 596+ hrs
Sensenich 62x46
flying again after rebuild, and new Electroair direct-fire ignition
system;
also building a new pair of snow skis
do not archive
On Dec 31, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Michael Gibbs wrote:
> <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Lynn sez:
>
>> ...when I flew my Kitfox taildragger to New York to visit the Old
>> Rhinebeck Aerodrome...they asked me if it was a taildragger and I
>> told them yes it was, and they said come on in. They had an
>> incident with a nosegear plane and their insurance company said no
>> more nose gears, thank you.
>
> I find that very hard to swallow (but I'll admit that the
> taildraggers just seem "right" at a place like Old Rhinebeck).
> That's like saying they had a problem with an airplane that had
> upholstered seats so now you have to sit on a wood plank. :-)
>
>> Besides, a nose gear plane landing at a field where conventional
>> gear WWI planes are flying?
>
> There's nothing conventional about taildraggers. If "conventional"
> refers to the origins of powered flight, the earliest aircraft had
> skids or tricycle or even quad wheel arrangements for the first
> several years. On the other hand, if the term refers to what is
> most common, that would surely be tricycle gear airplanes in this
> day and age. Maybe its just the conventional use of the term
> "conventional," which would, of course, be taildraggers. :-)
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster
> Phoenix, AZ
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Everybody ground loops? |
Well, I accepted the challenge and searched the archives for "groundloop"
and I confess I didn't read every one of the 97 posts as most were advice on
how to avoid them. I did find one post where a guy was asking for help in
finding parts for a wing that was damaged. On a related issue, I know that
there have been nosewheel strut failures on more than one Kitfox. I did try
to research that as well, but as is often the case now, not many folks put
the "do not archive" in a chatty post, so a challenge to check the archives
is fraught with frustration and will prove less than nothing about any
subject.
If Mike has in fact checked the archives and found more than my one
incident, I would welcome some more data. The last time this subject became
a serious issue on the list was the time we started the survey on what
everyone was flying building etc. and what we found was that there were 96
tailwheel airplanes on the list, 11 with nose gear and 7 on floats. The
significance is this. There would have to be about 9 tailwheel issues for
each nosewheel issue for the numbers to be significant. I am virtually
certain that there were at least two nose strut collapses. The challenge is
then to find eighteen tailwheel failures, or groundloops that would result
in the relative amount of damage a nosewheel collapse or groundloop would
cause.
For relative significance, I am reprinting a post from Nov, 2006.
Anytime when I am asked about airplane choices, my first answer is a
question - "What will it's mission be?"
I agree that failures of the tailwheel spring has largely outnumbered the
failures of the nose gear. Without getting into the relative numbers of
tailwheel vs. nose wheel Kitfoxes and statictics, I am aware personally of a
tailwheel failure that bent the lower tubing on the rudder requiring the
removel of the fabric, straightening of the tubing and recovering. I
suspect that is about the most you would expect of this type of failure.
Actually the airplane remained airworthy and was flyable. Getting out and
home from wherever it would happen would be possible with a simple skid made
from what is available or better yet a spare spring in the misc. bag.
On the other hand I doubt a nose wheel failure would be as simple and
undoubtedly if it happened in a remote area, I suspect a remote fix would be
necessary or maybe a trailering out if possible and a much more intensive
repair depending on extent of damage which could range from a prop
replacement to cowl, engine, engine mount or fuselage fixes. Also consider
engine out sutuations where the landing site might be far from ideal.
I remember this post from Darin a bit ago and it pretty much expains what I
am trying to say.
"The reason I flew my Model III as a tailwheel and will fly my Series 7 in
tailwheel configuration was confirmed by an incident my buddy had about a
month ago while landing at a realatively benign strip in the Idaho
backcountry...he was in his 182.
In short, he went into this strip (which he had been into numerous times
before) to camp with some friends and do some fishing. On Sunday they got
up to fly home and decided to walk the strip once before starting the
takeoff roll. The reason for the walk was to pickout all major gopher
holes. They made a thourough inspection and marked all major holes then
began their taxi to the downwind side of the strip. During this taxi, a
hole that was not seen in the previous inspection swallowed his nose wheel
and he had a pretty major prop strike! His 182 is still in the A&P's hanger
and is going through a complete teardown (he is consequently considering a
full rebuild to 0-time the engine) and while the insurance is covering a
major part of it, it is still a major cost to him in dollars and lost flying
time."
I believe amid the opinions, there are some things that could come close to
being considered facts. And the relative difficulty one can get themsleves
into with that third wheel is real. Scuffed wingtips or a bent rudder is
minor compared...
do not archive.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 12:14 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Everybody ground loops?
>
> Paul wrote a very good article addressing some valid points, but it does
> not change the reality. A Cessna 140 Taildragger is much more likely to
> be damaged in landings than a Cessna 150 Tricycle gear plane. Just check
> the insurance rates that are based on many years of accident data if you
> doubt this fact.
>
> As far as ground loops in ktifoxes, just do a search here on Matronics on
> " Ground Loop " and see how many Kitfoxes have had major damage due to
> being ground loops - Its a common way to destroy or do major damage to a
> Kitfox, and they were all taildraggers. Many more Kitfoxes have been in
> ground loops and been lucky enough to avoid damage, its a roll of the
> dice....
>
> As far as limitations, I and the vast majority of people never fly off of
> grass so high that need the extra prop clearance of a taildrgger. The
> limitation that we VERY OFTEN run into is crosswinds, and crosswinds are
> much better handled by a tricycle gear airplane. With a tricycle gear
> airplane, I can fly on many more days of the year than I can with a
> taildragger when there is a significant crosswind. I have owned both
> taildraggers and Nosewheel airplanes, and seen the limitations and
> benefits of each. Tricycle gear won hands down when it was time to chose
> which one would be on my Kitfox.
>
> Mike
>
> --------
> "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you
> could have !!!
>
> Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222005#222005
>
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: |
Re:Everybody ground loops?
Not to be outdone by Old Man Brennan (kidding, Bob), here's a couple
of early morning shots at Rhinebeck
Lynn
do not archive
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Everybody ground loops? |
When I had my tailwheel spring (2 leaf) break, and the tail dragged,
I was VERY glad it wasn't a failure of the support of the other
option for the "3rd wheel."
My prop got further from the ground, not INTO it.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 596+ hrs
Sensenich 62x46
flying again after rebuild, and new Electroair direct-fire ignition
system;
also building a new pair of snow skis
On Dec 31, 2008, at 9:45 PM, Lowell Fitt wrote:
> The challenge is then to find eighteen tailwheel failures, or
> groundloops that would result in the relative amount of damage a
> nosewheel collapse or groundloop would cause.
>
>
> Lowell
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was: |
Re:Everybody ground loops?
Funny how similar your paint scheme is to this Old Rhinebeck favorite, all
you need now to do is add a few more wings. And not mind being called an
"old fokker".
Oh no, I'm giving him more ideas!
Do not archive
Old man bob ;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: 31 December 2008 9:59 pm
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Tail dragger options vs tricycle gear, was:
Re:Everybody ground loops?
Not to be outdone by Old Man Brennan (kidding, Bob), here's a couple
of early morning shots at Rhinebeck
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Kitfox's 25th Anniversary - 1984-2009 |
Wow.. 25 years of Kitfox !! Thank you for your continued support. There
are several exciting things happening in 2009. We have updated our
airshow schedule. We will be attending Sun-n-Fun, Arlington, Oshkosh,
Copperstate and of course our Factory Fly-in, Labor Day weekend. Help us
get the word out ! If you need some info for a local area fly-in just
let us know. Hopefully we'll get the opportunity to attend some weekend
fly-in's in our area... they can always be fun.. especially the Johnson
Creek fly-in.
We have 2 new factory demonstrators currently being built for the 2009
season.. a Tail dragger and Tri-gear
The Leak..... Soon to be released...
The Classic IV is coming out of retirement to help celebrate our
anniversary !
25 Classic IV kits will be produced with custom serial numbers for the
anniversary. Thousands of the Kitfox Classic IV's have been delivered
and have been known by several names and variations. From the Model
IV-1050 to the 2 place ultralight trainer known as the Lite squared, the
poster plane for the Light Sport Aircraft (LSA). The Kitfox Classic 4
remains suitable for both the two-stroke and four-stroke Rotax engines
although builders have adapted many other engines choices. The Classic
IV is also very popular outside the USA in the ultralight, advanced
ultralight and microlight catagories.
Thank you ! 2009 is going to be a Great Year !! Look forward to seeing
you and your Kitfox.
Happy New Year !!!!
John McBean
www.kitfoxaircraft.com
"The Sky is Not the Limit... It's a Playground"
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rhinebeck NY94 |
On Wed, December 31, 2008 6:59 pm, Lynn Matteson wrote:
> Not to be outdone by Old Man Brennan (kidding, Bob), here's a couple
> of early morning shots at Rhinebeck
Nice photos Lynn. Is that your bird? Nice paint design job.
You got me so interested I looked it up. First the FAQ
<http://www.oldrhinebeck.org/faq.htm>
Plenty of links on that page too. Some movies which were taking too long to load
that
I gave up and plenty of photos.
Location (great website for finding info on any airport)
<http://gc.kls2.com/airport/NY94#location>
Of course AirNAV has info on it. There's a nice little bird's eye view of the field
on
this page:
<http://www.airnav.com/airport/NY94>
--
Paul A. Franz, P.E.
PAF Consulting Engineers
Office 425.440.9505
Cell 425.241.1618
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rhinebeck NY94 |
The Golden Age Airshow in Pa (near me) is similar to Old Rhinebeck, in fact
it is put on by a guy who used to run the Rhinebeck show.
http://www.goldenageair.org/events.htm
Speaking of tailwheels and nosewheels and damage - they did the
drunken-farmer-steals-a-cub routine but when he was supposed to be "waving"
the tail he waved a little too much... prop strike! That was the end of the
show season for that cub, despite being a taildragger.
Happy New Year!
Bob Brennan - N717GB
ELSA Repairman, inspection rated
1991 UK Model 2 ELSA Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul A. Franz,
P.E.
Sent: 31 December 2008 11:42 pm
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Rhinebeck NY94
<paul@eucleides.com>
On Wed, December 31, 2008 6:59 pm, Lynn Matteson wrote:
> Not to be outdone by Old Man Brennan (kidding, Bob), here's a couple
> of early morning shots at Rhinebeck
Nice photos Lynn. Is that your bird? Nice paint design job.
You got me so interested I looked it up. First the FAQ
<http://www.oldrhinebeck.org/faq.htm>
Plenty of links on that page too. Some movies which were taking too long to
load that
I gave up and plenty of photos.
Location (great website for finding info on any airport)
<http://gc.kls2.com/airport/NY94#location>
Of course AirNAV has info on it. There's a nice little bird's eye view of
the field on
this page:
<http://www.airnav.com/airport/NY94>
--
Paul A. Franz, P.E.
PAF Consulting Engineers
Office 425.440.9505
Cell 425.241.1618
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
At 04:31 PM 12/31/2008, you wrote:
>I was just looking at the vent lines on each side of my 582 carbs.
>Both carbs are 'T' into a common line which goes out and down from
>the engine compartment. I assume this was done to prevent any fires
>in case of overflow. HOWEVER...I remember reading in a earlier
>thread that it is not a good idea since now both carbs will have
>equal air pressure and could screw up carb tuning...Thoughts ????? thanks
I've never heard an admonition for the 582. Certainly the
912 guys have some interesting stories to tell and modification of
their vent lines is discouraged. I suspect it depends on the
installation. Certainly you are potentially messing with the mixture,
as the Bing 54 relies on venturi / float differential for flow rate.
Were you to put that vent near a high velocity air stream, you could
get really lean. However, were you to use large diameter tube and
locate the end inside the cowl, away from moving air, I can't imagine
you'd hurt anything. You'd definitely want to A/B test it, though.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV/1200 w/ 582 C-box & Warp 3 blade
100% and flying thanks mostly to Bob Ducar
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! --
|