Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:30 AM - ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? (Paul Franz - Merlin GT)
2. 06:32 AM - Re: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? (paul wilson)
3. 07:51 AM - Re: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? (akflyer)
4. 08:02 AM - Re: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? (Ted Palamarek)
5. 08:55 AM - Cessna with Rotax new (skyring)
6. 09:19 AM - Re: Warp Drive overhaul (JetPilot)
7. 09:28 AM - Re: Rotax powered Cessna (JetPilot)
8. 09:32 AM - Re: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? (Guy Buchanan)
9. 09:32 AM - Re: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? (Guy Buchanan)
10. 09:53 AM - engine mount (wannafly)
11. 11:31 AM - Re: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? (Mike C)
12. 12:02 PM - Re: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? (Ted Palamarek)
13. 12:20 PM - Re: Re: Rotax powered Cessna (Rueb, Duane)
14. 02:47 PM - Re: Re: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? (Paul Franz - Merlin GT)
15. 05:34 PM - Re: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? (Noel Loveys)
16. 06:05 PM - Re: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? (R.D.(Ron) Leclerc)
17. 07:01 PM - Re: Re: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? (Noel Loveys)
18. 09:22 PM - Re: Rotax powered Cessna (JetPilot)
19. 09:36 PM - Re: Rotax powered Cessna (darinh)
20. 10:11 PM - Re: Rotax powered Cessna (av8rps)
21. 10:36 PM - 26 foot Clipped Wing Kitfox (av8rps)
22. 10:42 PM - 6 gallon wing tanks enough (av8rps)
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: | ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? |
I just came across an advertisement for a 1.87 LB ELT with a 6 year battery life.
<http://www.kannad.com/en/safety/index.php?id=51>
Is this 406 MHz a replacement for the 121.5 MHz standard that I'm familiar with?
What are you using? What antenna considerations should there be? I assume an external
antenna should be on top since an ELT would most likely be deployed on the ground
and
hopefully with the aircraft right side up.
Maybe you don't even need an external antenna.
Recommendations?
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? |
That is my understanding - $406$ is an acceptable replacement for 121.5
Consider buying the lowest cost to meet the FAA requirements (121.5)
then buy Spot and choose the tracking feature that best meets your
needs. Spot works and works as intended and as advertised. Very
popular solution for pilots and wilderness adventurers. Much less
expensive and more functional than the PLBs that was the first
generation of such devices.
Lots of discussion on other Matronics forums as well as on the
Internet. Check the Aeorelectric forum archives.
Paul
======
At 01:28 AM 1/15/2009, you wrote:
><paul@eucleides.com>
>
>Is this 406 MHz a replacement for the 121.5 MHz standard that I'm
>familiar with?
>
>Recommendations?
>
>--
>Paul A. Franz
>Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
>Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
>Bellevue WA
>425.241.1618 Cell
>
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: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? |
Paul A. Franz, P.E. wrote:
> I just came across an advertisement for a 1.87 LB ELT with a 6 year battery life.
>
>
>
> Is this 406 MHz a replacement for the 121.5 MHz standard that I'm familiar with?
>
> What are you using? What antenna considerations should there be? I assume an
external
> antenna should be on top since an ELT would most likely be deployed on the ground
and
> hopefully with the aircraft right side up.
>
> Maybe you don't even need an external antenna.
>
> Recommendations?
>
> --
> Paul A. Franz
> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
> Bellevue WA
> 425.241.1618 Cell
The 406 is only REQUIRED if you plan on flying into Canada or another country.
121.5 is still USA, you just wont have satellite monitoring, it will rely on
overhead traffic and other pilots to hear the signal and get the ball rolling.
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Leonard Perry
Soldotna AK
Avid "C" / Mk IV
582 IVO IFA
Full Lotus 1260
As done as any plane will ever be.... cause now the tinkeritis takes over.
hander outer of humorless darwin awards
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224905#224905
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: | ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? |
Paul
The ELT standard is changing from 121.5 MHz to 406 MHz and in Canada in the
next while we will be mandated to change over to 406 MHz. There are several
aviation organizations lobbying the Gov't to allow alternatives such as SPOT
to be used for small aircraft. So far in this Country the DOT (our
equivalent of your FAA) is not budging on this request from the aviation
groups. I don't recall the exact dates for the change over but I believe it
is in the next year. Perhaps Noel could chime in on this. This change in
Canada is also a point of discussion with the AOPA , FAA, EAA and others as
the change here would affect small aircraft such as our group flying from
the lower 48 through Canada to Alaska.
The way I now understand it --- after implementation an aircraft going from
the lower 48 to Alaska would need 406 MHz ELT to make the trip through
Canada.
This story is still on going here and things may change depending on how
much the DOT listens to the Aviation Groups.
Ted Palamarek
Edmonton, Ab
Kitfox 4-1200/912
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Franz -
Merlin GT
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 2:29 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard?
<paul@eucleides.com>
I just came across an advertisement for a 1.87 LB ELT with a 6 year battery
life.
<http://www.kannad.com/en/safety/index.php?id=51>
Is this 406 MHz a replacement for the 121.5 MHz standard that I'm familiar
with?
What are you using? What antenna considerations should there be? I assume an
external
antenna should be on top since an ELT would most likely be deployed on the
ground and
hopefully with the aircraft right side up.
Maybe you don't even need an external antenna.
Recommendations?
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
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: | Cessna with Rotax new |
Just starting a new thread on this as the other one wandered off and I apologise
for this being a bit off topic...
In Europe a few Cessna's have been fitted with Rotax 912S. Follow this link to
see the one that my aero club had converted.
http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/096902.html
I flew it a couple of times and the performance in both climb and cruise was better
than an 0-200 C150 - and I guess this was mainly due to the lighter weight
and the nice big geared constant speed propeller. It was an expensive conversion
(don't have the figures - just passing on gossip) and the club had high hopes
that it would pay itself off with lower running costs and satisfy a large
number of club members who like to fly C150's. In the end the project was abandoned
because not enough members took to it and the engine was eventually put
into a Katana. The remains are now up for sale.
Why it didn't prove more popular (had very good range) is hard to say but somehow
it didn't work. The only negative I could see was the poorer visibility over
the big cowling.
Kerry
Kitfox S5 912S in the test flying phase
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224919#224919
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: Warp Drive overhaul |
Call Warp drive about your propeller, they will be the best ones to tell you how
to check the condition of their props.
Daryl, president of the factory, is also the guy you will talk to when
you call them on their 1-800-833-9357. He is extremely knowledgeable
of his product and its applications.
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=224924#224924
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: Rotax powered Cessna |
ruebd(at)skymail.csus.edu wrote:
>
>
> I do, however, have a concern for the newbys that will innocently assume the
they are purchasing a craft that will not only represent good value, but will
represent the best overall choice of power plant for simplicity, safety, and operating
cost. An engine with two cooling systems, two carburetors (that can
get out of sync), a puny alternator that has issues with its wiring, cannot be
leaned for best power, but is supposed to do so automatically does not represent
the best possible choice for these new pilots, and I am sure that Cessna also
knows it, but is trading this for a purchase price point that might help their
sales initially, but in the long run I suspect many of their purchasers will
want to up-grade their engine to one that is simpler, more robust and overall
less expensive.
>
> Duane Rueb, N24ZM
>
>
>
> --
Duane,
You have not been paying attention [Embarassed] .... Cessna is putting the Continental
0200 in their new LSA airplane, NOT the Rotax 912-S.
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=224929#224929
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: | ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? |
At 08:01 AM 1/15/2009, you wrote:
>The way I now understand it --- after implementation an aircraft going from
>the lower 48 to Alaska would need 406 MHz ELT to make the trip through
>Canada.
Ted,
I have a question on the Canadian implementation. Will they
allow 406 PLBs? Or must you have an aircraft model with G-switch?
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? |
At 01:28 AM 1/15/2009, you wrote:
>I assume an external
>antenna should be on top since an ELT would most likely be deployed
>on the ground and
>hopefully with the aircraft right side up.
>
>Maybe you don't even need an external antenna.
Nice thing about a Kitfox is that the antenna can be internal. The
cloth doesn't impede transmission.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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 |
|
anyone have a mount for a 912 ul to go on a model IV need a muffler as well. Do
any changes have to be made to the cowling for it to fit.
thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224937#224937
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: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? |
The Canadian implementation of the 406 ELT will be phased in over the next 2 years
starting next month. It must be an impact activated device so only a proper
ELT will do. The grapevine is saying that Transport Canada (TC) will look the
other way when US planes are flying into or through Canada without the 406 ELT.
The grapevine is also saying there is going to be an 11th hour meeting between
TC and the stake holders that could see some changes but no specifics.
The new ELT will have to be registered to the aircraft owner so that any signals
will be directly traceable to the plane and there is the option of transmitting
GPS co-ordinates. I understand that the 406 will transmit at 5 watts instead
of the 1/2 watt transmission of the 121.5. This will help when using an antenna
inside the frame.
Battery packs will be expense (Li-Ion) but they are good for 5 years. The kicker
in Canada is the annual re-cert which will be at least triple the cost of the
old units.
I'm usually in the shadows but this info was gathered from a seminar I attended
late last year.
Mike C
Simcoe, Ontario
Model II 582
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224955#224955
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: | ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? |
Guy
The way I understand it now is that the aircraft must have the ELT mounted
in the aircraft with an inertia switch that would activate the ELT in the
event of a crash. The aviation groups in Canada are still actively lobbying
the DOT to allow the PLB and SPOT type instruments to be acceptable in small
acrft such as ours rather than the expensive 406MHz ELT.
This story still has some legs and no legislation has been enacted yet to
make the 406MHz mandatory. Currently our Fed Gov't is not sitting and will
not be sitting till the later part of this month. I personally think that
this issue will take a back seat to the economy and won't be acted on for a
number of months. I will try getting you some further info on this issue in
Canada.
Ted Palamarek
Edmonton, Ab
Kitfox 4-1200/912ul
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Guy Buchanan
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:26 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard?
At 08:01 AM 1/15/2009, you wrote:
>The way I now understand it --- after implementation an aircraft going from
>the lower 48 to Alaska would need 406 MHz ELT to make the trip through
>Canada.
Ted,
I have a question on the Canadian implementation. Will they
allow 406 PLBs? Or must you have an aircraft model with G-switch?
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: Rotax powered Cessna |
OK, I missed the fact that it was the 'other way around' and I am a little embarrassed
at that, but I did read something that caused me to think that maybe they
had backed away from their first decision.
Please accept my apology, but now I must hope that some learning might have resulted
from my mistaken reasoning, and I also apologize to Cessna and applaud their
choice. It should result in some excellent value to their clients because
it will likely be a very robust product designed for the relatively new market
of a factory built plane aimed at the Sport Pilot category. Heck, as nice
a package as it will be, I bet they will sell em to private pilots as well.
p.s. If I didn't have what I have, I might be trying to talk my wife into letting
me order one.
Duane Rueb N24ZM
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JetPilot
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:28 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax powered Cessna
ruebd(at)skymail.csus.edu wrote:
>
>
> I do, however, have a concern for the newbys that will innocently assume the
they are purchasing a craft that will not only represent good value, but will
represent the best overall choice of power plant for simplicity, safety, and operating
cost. An engine with two cooling systems, two carburetors (that can
get out of sync), a puny alternator that has issues with its wiring, cannot be
leaned for best power, but is supposed to do so automatically does not represent
the best possible choice for these new pilots, and I am sure that Cessna also
knows it, but is trading this for a purchase price point that might help their
sales initially, but in the long run I suspect many of their purchasers will
want to up-grade their engine to one that is simpler, more robust and overall
less expensive.
>
> Duane Rueb, N24ZM
>
>
>
> --
Duane,
You have not been paying attention [Embarassed] .... Cessna is putting the Continental
0200 in their new LSA airplane, NOT the Rotax 912-S.
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=224929#224929
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: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? |
On Thu, January 15, 2009 7:49 am, akflyer wrote:
> The 406 is only REQUIRED if you plan on flying into Canada or another country.
121.5
> is still USA, you just wont have satellite monitoring, it will rely on overhead
> traffic and other pilots to hear the signal and get the ball rolling.
In an article by the EAA;
A note to those flying outside the U.S.: While 406 MHz ELTs are not mandatory for
operating in the U.S., pilots who fly internationally - to Canada, Mexico, etc.
-
after February 1, 2009, will be required to upgrade their ELTs to the new ICAO
standard 406 MHz units. EAA is working with Transport Canada to obtain an exemption
to
this regulation for aircraft transitioning through Canada to Alaska, or flying
from
the northeastern part of the U.S. to the west where the most direct flight route
requires a short transition through Canadian airspace.
<http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-09-04_elt.asp>
They have further comments intended to clarify here:
<http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-09-04_elt_info.asp>
The problem I see is practical. It would appear that getting a 406.28 MHz compliant
ELT will cost around $4k with the interface to the NAV system for GPS coordinates.
Using the pricing for the unit I originally mentioned from Aircraft Spruce:
<http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/av/elt_kannad.html>
With accessories and the interface kit, this is around $4k. That's pretty expensive.
Whereas a more reasonable ELT would be around $200. This one looks pretty good.
<http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/ack_tech.php>
Since there is no requirement in the US for any update, just that the satellite
detection system is going down the end of this month. Maybe using a PLB such as
this
Ameri-King unit would be more affordable as an add - on.
<http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/ak451PLB.php>
However there are many SPOT devices. This one requires an annual subscription.
I don't
think any of them meet the requirements for 406 compliance in say Canada or Mexico.
<https://mysattracker.com/>
Since there will be no more satellite tracking of 121.5 ELT signals, I feel I should
do something more but not $4k worth of something.
Anybody have an opinion on using this one?
<http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/ak451PLB.php>
I don't see anything about crash detection. Maybe that's why it is less money.
--
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: | ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? |
I have to call a TC inspector tomorrow.... I'll bounce this question off
him.
It is however my understanding that unless an imminent threat is encountered
by allowing an aircraft to fly, the plane in question has to meet the
specifications for flight authority in the country of registration. It is
then allowed to fly in Canada. That means not only the crowd that passes
through on their way to and from Alaska are legal but the folks form the
eastern seaboard that summer in Labrador are also legal. I think a plane
and pilot has 180 days before any requirement to get a Canadian registration
or license. In that 180 days I don't think TC even has the right to ramp
check a foreign registered plane without a request from the home country.
They do have the right to examine documents.
As far as I know the exceptions are... PP-UL and PP-Rec (Pilot
Permit-Ultralight, Pilot Permit-Recreational, Canada)are not allowed to fly
any Canadian aircraft, not registered UL in Canada, south of the border.
Holders of U.S. LSA licenses are not permitted to fly in Canada. The
excuses, not reasons, are the same in both cases... Incompatibility of the
medical requirements.
Canadian Ultralight specifications are currently that an ultralight aircraft
has to be under 1200Lb.(Basic) 1232Lb. for the "Advanced Ultralight" MTOW.
They must also have a stall speed, in the landing configuration, of no more
than 45 mph. At MTOW. This potentially puts Canadian ultralight aircraft
far above the weight characteristics of the US ultralight.(254 lb dry) In
Canada if it flies and carries any living body it must be registered. Even
our balloons are registered and their pilots are licensed.
Another difference is; in Canada an ultralight is defined by the aircraft
not by the registration. My 'Fox is registered Amateur built but I can fly
it as an ultralight, which I do on floats (no UL endorsement for floats) and
with the 121.5 ELT. Another difference in regulations which you guys may
find interesting is in Canada there is no endorsement for conventional
landing gear. Anyone with half a brain will get tail wheel training but it
is not a requirement. Funny we don't have thousands of tail draggers
plummeting out of the skies like rain in a thunderstorm.
I hope that the new President and the old PM will take a group of people
(FAA and TC lords) and lock them in a small basement somewhere, with bad
plumbing, no air conditioning and nothing but baked beans and prunes. Leave
them there until they get a reciprocal agreement. They can do the same
thing the Cardinals do... Send up white smoke to notify an agreement. What
are the bets they would have an agreement before supper the first day :-)
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ted Palamarek
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:31 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard?
Paul
The ELT standard is changing from 121.5 MHz to 406 MHz and in Canada in the
next while we will be mandated to change over to 406 MHz. There are several
aviation organizations lobbying the Gov't to allow alternatives such as SPOT
to be used for small aircraft. So far in this Country the DOT (our
equivalent of your FAA) is not budging on this request from the aviation
groups. I don't recall the exact dates for the change over but I believe it
is in the next year. Perhaps Noel could chime in on this. This change in
Canada is also a point of discussion with the AOPA , FAA, EAA and others as
the change here would affect small aircraft such as our group flying from
the lower 48 through Canada to Alaska.
The way I now understand it --- after implementation an aircraft going from
the lower 48 to Alaska would need 406 MHz ELT to make the trip through
Canada.
This story is still on going here and things may change depending on how
much the DOT listens to the Aviation Groups.
Ted Palamarek
Edmonton, Ab
Kitfox 4-1200/912
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: | ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? |
Hey... Hey there Noel,
Kind of makes you wonder where there coming from!
Word out is that it may happen this year...
Ron Leclerc
Winnipeg, BRRRRR(-49 here this morning) Mb
CH701 #7-6699 Scratch Build
:-(
:-(
:-( I have to call a TC inspector tomorrow.... I'll bounce this
:-( question off him.
:-(
:-( It is however my understanding that unless an imminent threat is
:-( encountered by allowing an aircraft to fly, the plane in question
:-( has to meet the specifications for flight authority in the
:-( country of registration. It is then allowed to fly in Canada.
:-( That means not only the crowd that passes through on their way to
:-( and from Alaska are legal but the folks form the eastern seaboard
:-( that summer in Labrador are also legal. I think a plane and
:-( pilot has 180 days before any requirement to get a Canadian
:-( registration or license. In that 180 days I don't think TC even
:-( has the right to ramp check a foreign registered plane without a
:-( request from the home country. They do have the right to examine
:-( documents.
:-(
:-( As far as I know the exceptions are... PP-UL and PP-Rec (Pilot
:-( Permit-Ultralight, Pilot Permit-Recreational, Canada)are not
:-( allowed to fly any Canadian aircraft, not registered UL in
:-( Canada, south of the border. Holders of U.S. LSA licenses are not
:-( permitted to fly in Canada. The excuses, not reasons, are the
:-( same in both cases... Incompatibility of the medical
:-( requirements.
:-(
:-( Canadian Ultralight specifications are currently that an
:-( ultralight aircraft has to be under 1200Lb.(Basic) 1232Lb. for
:-( the "Advanced Ultralight" MTOW. They must also have a stall
:-( speed, in the landing configuration, of no more than 45 mph. At
:-( MTOW. This potentially puts Canadian ultralight aircraft far
:-( above the weight characteristics of the US ultralight.(254 lb
:-( dry) In Canada if it flies and carries any living body it must be
:-( registered. Even our balloons are registered and their pilots
:-( are licensed.
:-(
:-( Another difference is; in Canada an ultralight is defined by the
:-( aircraft not by the registration. My 'Fox is registered Amateur
:-( built but I can fly it as an ultralight, which I do on floats (no
:-( UL endorsement for floats) and with the 121.5 ELT. Another
:-( difference in regulations which you guys may find interesting is
:-( in Canada there is no endorsement for conventional landing gear.
:-( Anyone with half a brain will get tail wheel training but it is
:-( not a requirement. Funny we don't have thousands of tail
:-( draggers plummeting out of the skies like rain in a thunderstorm.
:-(
:-( I hope that the new President and the old PM will take a group of
:-( people (FAA and TC lords) and lock them in a small basement
:-( somewhere, with bad plumbing, no air conditioning and nothing but
:-( baked beans and prunes. Leave them there until they get a
:-( reciprocal agreement. They can do the same thing the Cardinals
:-( do... Send up white smoke to notify an agreement. What are the
:-( bets they would have an agreement before supper the first day :-)
:-(
:-( Noel
:-(
:-( -----Original Message-----
:-( From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
:-(
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]
On Behalf Of Ted
:-( Palamarek Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:31 PM To: kitfox-
:-( list@matronics.com
:-( Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard?
:-(
:-(
:-(
:-( Paul
:-(
:-( The ELT standard is changing from 121.5 MHz to 406 MHz and in
:-( Canada in the next while we will be mandated to change over to
:-( 406 MHz. There are several aviation organizations lobbying the
:-( Gov't to allow alternatives such as SPOT to be used for small
:-( aircraft. So far in this Country the DOT (our equivalent of your
:-( FAA) is not budging on this request from the aviation groups. I
:-( don't recall the exact dates for the change over but I believe it
:-( is in the next year. Perhaps Noel could chime in on this. This
:-( change in Canada is also a point of discussion with the AOPA ,
:-( FAA, EAA and others as the change here would affect small
:-( aircraft such as our group flying from the lower 48 through
:-( Canada to Alaska.
:-(
:-( The way I now understand it --- after implementation an aircraft
:-( going from the lower 48 to Alaska would need 406 MHz ELT to make
:-( the trip through Canada.
:-(
:-( This story is still on going here and things may change depending
:-( on how much the DOT listens to the Aviation Groups.
:-(
:-( Ted Palamarek
:-( Edmonton, Ab
:-( Kitfox 4-1200/912
:-(
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard? |
Problem as i see it is the new system only adds an ident. to the signal.
That means when they send out the search team they know if they are looking
fo a 2 seater or two hundred seater. The GPS coordinates is an expensive
add on. I think something like the spot with a 121.5 should be enough for
private planes.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Franz -
Merlin GT
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: ELT - 406 MHz or 121.5 standard?
<paul@eucleides.com>
On Thu, January 15, 2009 7:49 am, akflyer wrote:
> The 406 is only REQUIRED if you plan on flying into Canada or another
country. 121.5
> is still USA, you just wont have satellite monitoring, it will rely on
overhead
> traffic and other pilots to hear the signal and get the ball rolling.
In an article by the EAA;
A note to those flying outside the U.S.: While 406 MHz ELTs are not
mandatory for
operating in the U.S., pilot's who fly internationally - to Canada, Mexico,
etc. -
after February 1, 2009, will be required to upgrade their ELTs to the new
ICAO
standard 406 MHz units. EAA is working with Transport Canada to obtain an
exemption to
this regulation for aircraft transitioning through Canada to Alaska, or
flying from
the northeastern part of the U.S. to the west where the most direct flight
route
requires a short transition through Canadian airspace.
<http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-09-04_elt.asp>
They have further comments intended to clarify here:
<http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-09-04_elt_info.asp>
The problem I see is practical. It would appear that getting a 406.28 MHz
compliant
ELT will cost around $4k with the interface to the NAV system for GPS
coordinates.
Using the pricing for the unit I originally mentioned from Aircraft Spruce:
<http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/av/elt_kannad.html>
With accessories and the interface kit, this is around $4k. That's pretty
expensive.
Whereas a more reasonable ELT would be around $200. This one looks pretty
good.
<http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/ack_tech.php>
Since there is no requirement in the US for any update, just that the
satellite
detection system is going down the end of this month. Maybe using a PLB such
as this
Ameri-King unit would be more affordable as an add - on.
<http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/ak451PLB.php>
However there are many SPOT devices. This one requires an annual
subscription. I don't
think any of them meet the requirements for 406 compliance in say Canada or
Mexico.
<https://mysattracker.com/>
Since there will be no more satellite tracking of 121.5 ELT signals, I feel
I should
do something more but not $4k worth of something.
Anybody have an opinion on using this one?
<http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/ak451PLB.php>
I don't see anything about crash detection. Maybe that's why it is less
money.
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax powered Cessna |
Paul,
I agree with you, I like the Continental 0200, it is a great and reliable engine.
The Rotax 912 is light and very efficient, but it does take a lot more skill
to maintain properly, I don't think the average flight school is up to it...
I have a Rotax 912-S and I like it a lot, but if I had about 20,000 dollars
instead of the 912-S, I would buy the new experimental fuel injected Lycoming
engine to put in my Kitfox SS, then the Continental-0200 after that. As good
as the 912-S is, it does have more problems and required maintenance than a
certified aircraft engine. I dont weigh much, so my Kitfox with a standard aircraft
engine would not be much heaver than the average kitfox with a 912-S and
a heavier pilot.
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=225035#225035
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: Rotax powered Cessna |
The O-200 is a great engine but heavy when compared with the 912S...In the new
Cessna Flea Catcher that shouldn't be a problem but on the Kitfox I think the
912S is a much better choice. Kitfoxes fly much better when they are light.
By the way Mike, you keep speaking of the O-200 as a certified engine and the 912S
as an "Experimental" which of course is correct. However, add the Letter "A"
to the end of 912 and you will get the exact same engine as the "S" but.........yes,
certified. Diamond put them in the Katana for a while then I think
switched to the IO-240 which is another great engine by the way. I do agree though,
the continental is easier to maintain and everyone and their dog knows
the engine inside an out...it is a little tougher to find an A&P that knows the
Rotax very well but that will change with time and all the LSA flying them.
--------
Darin Hawkes
Series 7
914 Turbo
Kaysville, Utah
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225037#225037
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: Rotax powered Cessna |
Back in the 90's Reiner Hoffman, the designer of the Stratus Subaru conversions
put a Stratus Sube in a C150 and flew it across the country alongside an 0-200
C-150 for comparison. In all regards, the Stratus outperformed the 0-200.
It was never certified, so the test was truly nothing more than an experiment.
But it sure was interesting.
There also is a flying club outside the US (Italy or France I believe) that has
a 912ul powered C-150 that has been in operation now for quite a few years.
I don't recall the complete details, but as I recall the 80 hp 912 performs pretty
much on par with the original o-200, but burns less fuel.
In my opinion Cessna's new 'made in China", 0-200 powered LSA resulted in nothing
more than a glorified remake of the old C-150 trainer. Due to using essentially
the same technologies they used in the 60's and 70's, the performance of
their newest little Cessna is going to reflect that. I'm sure it will provide
someone with a good little trainer, but as a personal airplane it does little
or nothing for me. If I wanted a C-150, I'll find a really nice used one and
will save myself 80-100 grand.
But with all that said, I really can't understand anyone wanting a new (or even
an old) Cessna when they could have a really nice, high performance Kitfox instead.
The Kitfox will not only be a whole bunch more fun to fly, but will also
provide one with a much more capable, cost effective, and better performing
aircraft. Old technology is old technology. I'll put my 80 hp 912 Kitfox amphibian
up against any similar horsepower, old engine technology amphibian. That
is if you can find one...
Paul S
Central Wisconsin
--------
Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
Avid Flyer
Lake Amphibian
Central Wisconsin
paul676@tds.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225038#225038
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 26 foot Clipped Wing Kitfox |
Hi Gang,
I'm working on a second Kitfox project (model IV 912ul with IFA IVO) and am seriously
thinking about making removable wing extensions, but with a shorter span
than the Speedster. I have it all pretty much figured out now, so it is just
a question of whether or not to do it. Anyone have any opinions on this? Also,
I would love to see some construction photos of slide in wing extensions
if anyone has done a speedster conversion from the long wing.
Oh yeah, I'm basing my rationale for doing this on what Avid did back in the early
days when they took their 29+ foot Avid STOL wing off their airplane and made
a new semi-symmetrical airfoil with only a 24 foot span. That was pretty
short in most peoples opinion, but overall still worked out ok. So I would think
a 26 foot Kitfox wing would still provide reasonable performance. I would
realistically anticipate a 3-400 fpm drop in climb, but a 15-20 mph increase
in cruise over the standard wing. At least that's my goal based on some initial
calculations.
Worse case scenario is that I slide the wing extensions back on because it didn't
work out like I hoped it would.
Paul S
--------
Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
Avid Flyer
Lake Amphibian
Central Wisconsin
paul676@tds.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225039#225039
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: | 6 gallon wing tanks enough |
Hi Guys and Gals,
I need some advice from the group;
My second Model IV 912ul Kitfox project is underway, and I have a decision to make;
It only has two 6 gallon wing tanks and the plastic header tank behind the
seat. Before I get any heavier into this project I should probably decide
whether or not it is worth the effort to change out the 6 gallon wing tanks to
the 13's. So if anyone here on the list is operating a 912ul with the small
tanks, I'd really appreciate hearing your thoughts...
Thanks,
Paul S
--------
Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
Avid Flyer
Lake Amphibian
Central Wisconsin
paul676@tds.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225040#225040
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! --
|