Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:14 AM - Re: Tail wheel (gary.algate@sandvik.com)
2. 01:42 AM - Re: Tail wheel (gary.algate@sandvik.com)
3. 02:17 AM - Re: Tail wheel (Paul Franz - Merlin GT)
4. 02:20 AM - Re: Tail wheel (gary.algate@sandvik.com)
5. 03:59 AM - Re: Tail wheel (Lynn Matteson)
6. 04:21 AM - Re: Tail wheel (Lynn Matteson)
7. 05:02 AM - Re: Tail wheel (Catz631@aol.com)
8. 05:07 AM - Re: Tail wheel (Michel Verheughe)
9. 06:16 AM - Re: LAT Flying through Canada (Noel Loveys)
10. 06:21 AM - Re: Re: Tail wheel (Lynn Matteson)
11. 07:04 AM - Re: Tail wheel (Noel Loveys)
12. 07:42 AM - Re: Landing gear in correct position??? (Lynn Matteson)
13. 07:54 AM - Re: Tail wheel (Noel Loveys)
14. 08:11 AM - Re: Landing gear in correct position??? (fox5flyer)
15. 08:40 AM - Re: Re: Landing gear in correct position??? (Francisco Drovetta)
16. 08:41 AM - Re: Landing gear in correct position??? (Francisco Drovetta)
17. 08:46 AM - Re: Landing gear in correct position??? (Tom Jones)
18. 09:07 AM - Re: Re: Landing gear in correct position??? (fox5flyer)
19. 09:56 AM - Re: Tail wheel (Paul A. Franz, P.E.)
20. 10:41 AM - Re: Tail wheel (Lowell Fitt)
21. 10:43 AM - Re: Tail wheel (Lynn Matteson)
22. 10:47 AM - Re: Landing gear in correct position??? (Lynn Matteson)
23. 10:59 AM - engine mount (Lowell Fitt)
24. 11:11 AM - Re: Tail wheel (Lynn Matteson)
25. 11:22 AM - Re: Tail wheel (Paul A. Franz, P.E.)
26. 11:55 AM - Re: LAT Flying through Canada (Dave G)
27. 12:54 PM - Re: LAT Flying through Canada (Lynn Matteson)
28. 01:34 PM - Re: turtle deck tab broke off (rudderdancer)
29. 01:34 PM - Re: Tail wheel (gary.algate@sandvik.com)
30. 02:02 PM - Re: engine mount (Tom Jones)
31. 03:04 PM - Re: turtle deck tab broke off (akflyer)
32. 03:26 PM - Re: Landing gear in correct position??? (Noel Loveys)
33. 03:33 PM - Re: Tail wheel (Noel Loveys)
34. 04:47 PM - Re: 912S Ignition Wiring Question (Peerenboom's)
35. 05:32 PM - First Flight - Brazilian Kitfox with O-200 (Francisco Drovetta)
36. 05:37 PM - Re: 912S Ignition Wiring Question (CDE2fly@aol.com)
37. 06:08 PM - Re: 6 gallon wing tanks enough (av8rps)
38. 06:17 PM - disassemble c-box question (jerry evans)
39. 07:20 PM - Re: 26 foot Clipped Wing Kitfox (av8rps)
40. 07:26 PM - Re: 26 foot Clipped Wing Kitfox (av8rps)
41. 08:09 PM - Re: Tail wheel (Lynn Matteson)
42. 08:12 PM - Re: First Flight - Brazilian Kitfox with O-200 (Weiss Richard)
43. 08:49 PM - Re: Tail wheel (Lynn Matteson)
44. 08:50 PM - Re: First Flight - Brazilian Kitfox with O-200 (Lynn Matteson)
45. 09:07 PM - Re: Tail wheel (gary.algate@sandvik.com)
46. 09:10 PM - Re: Tail wheel (Lynn Matteson)
47. 09:16 PM - Re: Tail wheel (Lynn Matteson)
48. 09:18 PM - Re: Tail wheel (Lowell Fitt)
49. 09:31 PM - Re: Tail wheel (Lynn Matteson)
50. 09:31 PM - Re: Tail wheel (gary.algate@sandvik.com)
51. 09:31 PM - Re: Tail wheel (gary.algate@sandvik.com)
52. 09:47 PM - Re: Tail wheel (gary.algate@sandvik.com)
53. 09:52 PM - Re: Tail wheel (Lynn Matteson)
54. 09:58 PM - Re: Tail wheel (Lynn Matteson)
55. 10:02 PM - Re: Tail wheel (Lynn Matteson)
56. 10:05 PM - Re: Tail wheel (Lynn Matteson)
57. 10:21 PM - Re: Tail wheel (Lynn Matteson)
58. 10:32 PM - Re: Tail wheel (Paul Franz - Merlin GT)
59. 10:39 PM - Re: Tail wheel (gary.algate@sandvik.com)
60. 10:39 PM - Re: Tail wheel (gary.algate@sandvik.com)
61. 10:39 PM - Re: Tail wheel (gary.algate@sandvik.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Paul
I just reviewed the Maul document and In my current config I have 20 deg
offset - but in the wrong direction!!
Gary Algate
SMC, Exploration
Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the addressees.
Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail in error, kindly notify us immediately by
telephone or e-mail and delete the message from your system. The sender
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of
this message which may arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
?This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we have
made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe and happy
Christmas".
"Paul Franz - Merlin GT" <paul@eucleides.com>
Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
18/01/2009 02:35 PM
Please respond to
kitfox-list@matronics.com
To
kitfox-list@matronics.com
cc
Subject
Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
<paul@eucleides.com>
On Sat, January 17, 2009 7:03 pm, Lynn Matteson wrote:
>
> What I was trying to describe is exactly what is shown in the
> illustration on page 17 of the article....that if a line projected
> through the centerline of the kingpin contacts the ground *ahead* of
> the point of contact of the wheel with the ground, that wheel will
> follow the vehicle to which the kingpin is attached.
OK, Lynn, in the picture on page 17 of this document
<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/Maule=5FTailwheel.pdf>
The red line is the steering axis of rotation. The blue line is for
reference and it
is a vertical line. As depicted, this makes for trailing stability, but
increases the
steering force. Notice the red line will always meet the ground ahead of
the tire to
ground contact point no matter which way you lean the king pin. This
author likes it
that way (as shown). Your photo shows the opposite lean but the wheel is
not loaded.
If it were operated that way, it might shimmy, wobble or or oscillate
especially on
pavement where there is good friction.
>..as in the
> caster wheel on your bed, the grocery cart, your bedroom dresser. The
> amount of *offset* as he calls it, only matters in the amount of
> difficulty of turning effort, not whether or not the wheel will
> follow the vehicle to which it is attached,
Not so. It will trail straight with it positioned as shown. If the axis is
pointed
forward on the bottom, when it pivots around the king pin from neutral it
will lower
the plane and it will favor such a move on its own. Also the force to
straighten out
direction is higher.
> and of course pushing the
> vehicle backwards will require more effort until the wheel is once
> again following the vehicle.
Of course, the wheel has to reverse and as it rotates past 40=B0 it release
s
from the
steering control too. Good point you make. Have it set for stability and
you make it
harder to reverse.
> If this kingpin is angled as in the
> illustration, the turning effort will increase as does the angle of
> the inclination *of* the kingpin. If the kingpin is absolutely
> vertical, the turning effort is negligible,
I'm with you and I agree.
> but the tendency to
> wobble is exaggerated.
But not at exactly vertical. There's no up-down forces induced by rotating
the caster
around the king pin.
Yours is angled ahead when unloaded. You have said it works fine which
means to me,
you haven't been aware of wobbling, but then again you have slack in your
safety
springs.
> The reason a grocery cart wheel wobbles is
> because those kingpins are vertical.
More to it than that. The grocery tire has worn spots and chewing gum
stuck in lumps
on the tire so that at exactly a vertical king pin orientation
oscillations are
induced.
> If they made the kingpin on an
> angle, there would be no wobble, but turning the cart would become
> more difficult,
Some of them are like that when the king pin and bushings are worn.
> because as you said, it makes the cart have to raise,
> and those Moms out there are havin' enough trouble raisin' the
> *kids*, let alone the carts. : )
What I want to know is what it feels like with less slack in your safety
springs?
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - The Kitfox-List Email Forum -
=5F-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
=5F-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
=5F-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
=5F-= Photoshare, and much much more:
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
=5F-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - List Contribution Web Site -
=5F-= Thank you for your generous support!
=5F-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=5F-=======================
===========
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 |
|
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 |
|
On Sun, January 18, 2009 1:12 am, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
> Paul
>
> I just reviewed the Maul document and In my current config I have 20 deg
> offset - but in the wrong direction!!
That doesn't sound good. Take a look at the photo of Lynn's showing that his is
slightly angled in the wrong direction with (I assume) no load on it or very little.
Here's the photo that Lynn attached, but it is posted on Matronics anyway.
<http://forums.matronics.com/download.php?id=14140>
He has about the smallest amount of slack in the springs you can get without making
half links and that concurs with what several people have advised. Certainly you
don't
need to have preload on the springs. The consensus is to use the safety type springs
which Lynn is not using.
I would check the angle with the normal amount of load on the tail wheel. It should
then be vertical or only slightly pointing back at the bottom of the king pin.
Point
it too far back and it will be difficult to steer the tail wheel, but will track
very
straight on the takeoff roll.
I have a different problem with my single leaf. The leaf is slightly twisted and
the
mounting point is not perfectly square so it leans a little port. I am going to
construct a small aluminum shim to compensate. I don't yet have my engine mounted
but
I did some initial preliminary taxi testing with a friend just pushing me in and
I
noticed asymmetric steering. Without an engine, of course, my tail was heavier
perhaps
than it will be with the engine mounted.
I'm happy I did the research and some can benefit from it.
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
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 |
|
Here's some photos of spring.
1st foto shows the break
2nd shows the reflex angle on the old spring
3rd shows the new castor angle which is the reverse of required
I am making a small bracket that will bolt onto the tail spring and then
reflex up 20 degrees. this should give me the require castor position.
Regards
Gary
Gary Algate
Kitfox Classic 4 jab2200
Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the addressees.
Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail in error, kindly notify us immediately by
telephone or e-mail and delete the message from your system. The sender
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of
this message which may arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
?This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we have
made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe and happy
Christmas".
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 |
|
That picture was taken with load on it, Paul. At least with the full
weight of the plane on it, but no pilot or passenger, and probably
close to full tanks (26 gallons) (I know I report a low-fuel warning
light frequently, but that's another issue : ) )
I'm not sure what you mean by "slightly angled in the wrong
direction? This is the way it sits, and flies, and has flown and
landed for two years, 600 hrs, and over 1300 landings...what could
possibly be wrong? I've flown it, others have flown and landed it,
and you're gonna look at a picture and tell me it's wrong?
c'mon...might be time to take that engineer hat off and don your
pilots' cap. : )
Without looking TOO hard for them the only "safety springs" I found
were the Maule anti-shimmy springs (pictured) that I mentioned a few
posts ago, that did not allow me to turn (easily) to the left. I
mentioned that at the time I tried these springs was at a time before
I had any tailwheel training, so I was maybe not as positive about
what should be going on when I taxied the plane. When I bought these
springs, I bought them for the "safety" feature, not necessarily the
anti-shimmy feature. Subsequently, I learned (correctly, I believe)
that the safety issue is overemphasized in that if a (control) spring
breaks, it's no big deal, as the tailwheel will caster if set up
correctly...and mine is....and will follow the plane. There are some
pilots that do not even have tailwheel control, preferring to allow
the tailwheel to follow with NO attachment to the rudder or any other
control device...none....think tail skid.
These were the Maule tailwheel anti-shimmy springs that I had
installed and (without proper training) could not make the plane turn
in one direction...(I thought it was left)....so I removed them. I
figured out at the time that I wasn't aggresive enough with the
rudder pedals to make the tailwheel break away, and let the wheel
freewheel as it it designed to do in s-l-o-w turns. This picture
also shows the original Skystar rear spring and the correct (sorry,
Paul) orientation of the kingpin-to-wheel configuration...correct for
MY plane, that is...can't say for others' planes.
This is the original tailwheel spring, with the original control
springs, set up with no slack in the springs. This shows the slight
curve-back that I think you mentioned that your new springs didn't
have, right, Gary? Well, my new 3-leaf spring doesn't have that curve-
back, but the slope of the spring is such that the kingpin
inclination is correct, I get castering, and it works for MY plane.
On Jan 18, 2009, at 5:15 AM, Paul Franz - Merlin GT wrote:
> <paul@eucleides.com>
>
> On Sun, January 18, 2009 1:12 am, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>> Paul
>>
>> I just reviewed the Maul document and In my current config I have
>> 20 deg
>> offset - but in the wrong direction!!
>
> That doesn't sound good. Take a look at the photo of Lynn's showing
> that his is
> slightly angled in the wrong direction with (I assume) no load on
> it or very little.
>
> Here's the photo that Lynn attached, but it is posted on Matronics
> anyway.
> <http://forums.matronics.com/download.php?id=14140>
>
> He has about the smallest amount of slack in the springs you can
> get without making
> half links and that concurs with what several people have advised.
> Certainly you don't
> need to have preload on the springs. The consensus is to use the
> safety type springs
> which Lynn is not using.
>
> I would check the angle with the normal amount of load on the tail
> wheel. It should
> then be vertical or only slightly pointing back at the bottom of
> the king pin. Point
> it too far back and it will be difficult to steer the tail wheel,
> but will track very
> straight on the takeoff roll.
>
> I have a different problem with my single leaf. The leaf is
> slightly twisted and the
> mounting point is not perfectly square so it leans a little port. I
> am going to
> construct a small aluminum shim to compensate. I don't yet have my
> engine mounted but
> I did some initial preliminary taxi testing with a friend just
> pushing me in and I
> noticed asymmetric steering. Without an engine, of course, my tail
> was heavier perhaps
> than it will be with the engine mounted.
>
> I'm happy I did the research and some can benefit from it.
>
> --
> Paul A. Franz
> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
> Bellevue WA
> 425.241.1618 Cell
>
>
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 |
|
I gotta disagree with you, Gary...I can't see what is wrong with the
caster angle of the new spring. A projected line drawn through the
kingpin hits the ground ahead of the tire contact point with the
ground and that IS the definition of "caster" in the mechanical
sense. Yours may be a *bit* too far ahead, but it damn sure will not
wobble, and it WILL follow. Have you tried to move the plane, or
taxied it? What makes you feel this is wrong? If you push the plane
backwards, does the wheel swivel and the tail drop? It should. If you
move the plane forward, is it hard to overcome the backwards facing
wheel, but when it does, does it follow the plane? It should. Does it
lock into place once it is trailing the plane...it should, if the
Maule mechanism is working properly, is well lubricated, and the cam
and pin and spring are in place. Make damn sure that the spindle/
kingpin are well lubed. When mine becomes hard to "kick over" it is
because the spindle/kingpin lacks sufficient lubrication...a shot of
grease will cure it.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
On Jan 18, 2009, at 5:18 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
> Here's some photos of spring.
>
> 1st foto shows the break
> 2nd shows the reflex angle on the old spring
> 3rd shows the new castor angle which is the reverse of required
>
>
> I am making a small bracket that will bolt onto the tail spring and
> then reflex up 20 degrees. this should give me the require castor
> position.
>
> Regards
>
> Gary
> Gary Algate
> Kitfox Classic 4 jab2200
> Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
>
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 |
|
Talk about stiff ! (yeah I know--tacky) The Grove single leaf aluminum spring
I used to have, was for sure. I have installed the 3 leaf spring from Kitfox
and overall it has worked out well .
Dick Maddux
Pensacola,Fl
**************Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's
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 |
|
> From: Lynn Matteson [lynnmatt@jps.net]
> I gotta disagree with you, Gary...I can't see what is wrong with the
> caster angle of the new spring.
I have to agree with Lynn, Gary. At least, if I understand this correctly. I think
I remember that the book says that the axis should tilt forward, just a tiny
little bit. Mine does, perhaps five degrees. And I am very please with its
behaviour, both when taxiing and landing.
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200 ... still flying as a PAX only
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: | LAT Flying through Canada |
Haven't seen the pictures but I'll keep an eye out.
The SNAFU with the medicals is not all on one side of the border. In Canada
up to age 45 a person can fill out what is called a medical declaration
(class 4 medical). It goes through the 50 y-n questions and then you get to
pay a $50 registration fee.. they don't renew licenses here so they more
than make up for revenue in the medical registration$. After the magic age
of 45 you wake up one morning and all sense of honour has died along with
your last two brain cells so you now need to have a regular MD. fill out the
form for you and... also order an EKG. As long as the sinus rhythm is
normal your good to go for another two years.
I'm not sure what the regs are on the drivers license but I do know that the
medical I used to have for the air brake endorsement on my driver's license
was a lot more in depth than the medical declaration. In fact it was more
in depth than the TC class 2 pilot medical except it is not administered by
a flight surgeon. We have ten provinces here the rough equivalent of your
states. Each province passes its own legislation on driving... So a
drivers license issued in one province will not necessarily be renewed in
another province. I think all the provinces will replace a driver's license
for a person moving in with little or no fuss but let you old license
expire and they come after you like a bear in heat. Drivers school, Tests &
the like. All costs $$$.
We don't have a minimum national level of what is an acceptable medical
condition to be able to drive a car. So TC as a national body can't accept
the license as a valid form of medical. Outside eyesight tests I don't know
if there is a place in the country where any other medical tests are
required. Here in Newfoundland medical doctors are supposed to be bound to
notify the department of highways of any patient who they think should not
be driving. Most doctors feel this is an infringement on their practice (it
is) and patient doctor confidentiality, some pass the info along, some
don't. The Department of Highways, not being the governing body of doctors,
takes what it gets... Quietly, very quietly.
Flight surgeons in this country are a different quintal of fish... They are
hired by TC so anything they find out is the property of TC. The patient is
only allowed to pay for the medical exam.
The long and the short of it is that without a national health standard we
will not have a driver's medical in Canada. My best guess is there is a
feeling among the lords of the manor at TC that if we allow US sport pilots
to fly here on a driver's medical then we, Canadian pilots, will want equal
consideration... and we would.
The answer is simple install a minimum national standard for medical health
to drive a car. Then allow the driver's license to act as a medical. It
probably won't happen too soon as it could mean taking literally thousands
of elderly tax payers off the road. It would be better for the country as a
whole but it would also be a hard sell. I personally know people who were
in their mid nineties and still driving.
South of the 49th the reason to keep PP-UL and PP-Rec (class 4 medical) out
is close to the reason Canada keeps driver's medicals out. The FAA feels it
has a good system of medical administration and it doesn't want to have any
one filling out their own medical forms. That makes the medical a self
issue document rather than a national or state issue document. So to keep
thousands of Americans who may have lost their licenses for any reason from
simply filing out their own medical forms they keep the Canadian guys out.
What can be done on the U.S. side of the border. Same as in Canada, develop
a minimum standard for driver's licenses.
Then both governments can take the heads of both the FAA and TC, lock them
in a damp mine with cold gruel and candles, leave them there until they iron
out a reciprocal agreement. They will be home for supper and we will have
the right to visit each other and show off our babes. (The ones with the
wings ;-) )
Clear as mud??
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: LAT Flying through Canada
Good show, Noel! (on the engine change)
Canada needs to further their reciprocal agreements to include the
Sport Pilot...period! And of course I don't have, or WON'T try for
the medical. I've seen too many guys go to the doc and the doc says
"you appear to be in good health, let's get you
tested".....ERRRNNNNDDDTTT!!!!!! red light flashes, you fail, no
more flying! I ain't havin' none of that shi-! I know guys that are
flying w/o a medical, and more power to 'em...until they get caught,
then they are busted for good. At least with a Sport Pilot
certificate, I'm legal as long as I can drag my weary bones up to the
counter every 4 years, wipe the drool off my chin, smile for the
camera, then have my attendant wheel me out to my
airplane...well...almost like that. : )
And so far, I don't think that SP's are falling out of the skies in
any great numbers, so the thinking about using a current drivers'
license in lieu of a medical must have some merit.
"allow it if they had the class 3(?) U.S. Aviation Medical." ??
Allow a person to fly as a Sport Pilot if they have a Medical?
That's like allowing a person to apply a band-aid if they have a
surgeon's license. Methinks they need to rethink this one...
Hey, Noel, did you get from those pictures what you needed? I posted
a test picture to Matronics Kitfox forum like Paul described, but I
haven't seen it, or the email announcing it.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
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: RE: Tail wheel |
The more the axis of the kingpin projects ahead of the point that the
wheel contacts the ground:
the less wobble;
the better the wheel will follow (this is why the dragsters lay the
axle back, thereby projecting the kingpin further ahead of the wheel
contact point)
the harder it will be to turn the wheel from that nicely following
wheel that you have made by projecting the kingpin further ahead
It's all a matter of what you want. If you want to be able to handle
the plane nicely in the barn, make the kingpin vertical (it'll wobble
like mad when you taxi, though) If you want straight-ahead control,
lay the kingpin back so the projection point is like Gary's is now.
If you want a compromise between both, well.....not too hard to
figure out what to do here, eh?
Now this has nothing to do with the Maule "break-away" function of
the tailwheel assembly, IF you have a Maule. That's a separate issue,
but in a way tied into how much caster is involved. The more caster,
the harder it will be to make it break away, the less caster, the
easier it will be, all other aspects of the Maule ass'y. being equal,
that is, greased, not worn out, etc.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
On Jan 18, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
>> From: Lynn Matteson [lynnmatt@jps.net]
>> I gotta disagree with you, Gary...I can't see what is wrong with the
>> caster angle of the new spring.
>
> I have to agree with Lynn, Gary. At least, if I understand this
> correctly. I think I remember that the book says that the axis
> should tilt forward, just a tiny little bit. Mine does, perhaps
> five degrees. And I am very please with its behaviour, both when
> taxiing and landing.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel Verheughe
> Norway
> Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200 ... still flying as a PAX only
>
> <pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
>
> List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List</a>
> forums.matronics.com</a>
> www.matronics.com/contribution</a>
>
> </b></font></pre>
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 |
|
The crack occurring the recurve makes me thing there may have been a
problem with the design of the spring. All the flex from the recurve was
all in one positon causing it to fatigue. The helper leaf which protects the
prime curve worked well but there was nothing there to protect the recurve.
The straightness of the crack is what makes me think it was not a defect in
the spring.
I would advise anyone using that type of spring (recurve) to have it checked
annually with an eddy current or Magnaflux machine. I don't think a visual
inspection could have prevented the break as cracks developed under the
surface of the spring and penetrated out to the surface.
Noel
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gary.algate@sandvik.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
Here's some photos of spring.
1st foto shows the break
2nd shows the reflex angle on the old spring
3rd shows the new castor angle which is the reverse of required
I am making a small bracket that will bolt onto the tail spring and then
reflex up 20 degrees. this should give me the require castor position.
Regards
Gary
Gary Algate
Kitfox Classic 4 jab2200
Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the addressees. Any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by persons
or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail in error, kindly notify us immediately by telephone or
e-mail and delete the message from your system. The sender does not accept
liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which
may arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
"This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we have
made a contribution to <http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/australia.html>
UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe and happy Christmas".
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: Landing gear in correct position??? |
On my IV, the distance from the center of the strut attachment hole
to the leading edge of the Grove gear is 30 inches. The Grove gear
attachment brackets on the Model IV utilize the front two pairs of
float brackets on each side....the rear two pair are not used for
landing gear on my plane. It looks like Francisco's gear is mounted
too far back, but that's just my opinion.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 17, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Zimmermans wrote:
> Francisco
> On my series 5 the distance from the back of the gear leg to the
> center of the strut attachment bracket hole is 29 1/4 inches. I
> hope this is useful.
> Jim series 5 0-200 under const.
> Lake Elmo MN 21D
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Francisco Drovetta
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 5:15 PM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Landing gear in correct position???
>
> Hi!
> Id like to know if my spring aluminium (Grove Type) landing gear
> is in correct position.
> with this configuration, could be dangerous to land?
> Photos attached.
> Tks
>
>
> Francisco Drovetta
> Kitfox IV "brazilian version" with Cont O-200
> So Paulo, SP
> Brazil
>
> www.dcubj3.com.br
>
>
> - 270.10.8/1898 - Release Date: 1/16/2009 3:09 PM
> ============================================================ _-
> ============================================================ _-
> contribution_-
> ===========================================================
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 |
|
Can't help but to fool around with the old Photoshop pr the new Gimp ;-)
Here is a picture I just did up showing the differences in the two setups.
TW difference.jpg
As you can see the bottom of the kingpin in the Fidoe setup points rearward
while Lynn's points forward. In both cases the blue line<nothing to do with
hockey> is a vertical reference line while the redline <zoom zoom 912
comming> depicts the fore-aft angle of the kingpin.
This can be corrected by either a piece put in to carry the tailwheel or
possibly a shim under the bolt that holds the wheel to the spring.
Lynn's set up works for him so I'd leave it as it is. Changing the angle of
the king pin could cause problems with the spring. Either way I still think
If I was flying with a tail spring I'd have it checked NDT annually. Only
takes a few minutes and cost is minimal.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
That picture was taken with load on it, Paul. At least with the full weight
of the plane on it, but no pilot or passenger, and probably close to full
tanks (26 gallons) (I know I report a low-fuel warning light frequently, but
that's another issue : ) )
I'm not sure what you mean by "slightly angled in the wrong direction? This
is the way it sits, and flies, and has flown and landed for two years, 600
hrs, and over 1300 landings...what could possibly be wrong? I've flown it,
others have flown and landed it, and you're gonna look at a picture and tell
me it's wrong?
c'mon...might be time to take that engineer hat off and don your pilots'
cap. : )
Without looking TOO hard for them the only "safety springs" I found were the
Maule anti-shimmy springs (pictured) that I mentioned a few posts ago, that
did not allow me to turn (easily) to the left. I mentioned that at the time
I tried these springs was at a time before I had any tailwheel training, so
I was maybe not as positive about what should be going on when I taxied the
plane. When I bought these springs, I bought them for the "safety" feature,
not necessarily the anti-shimmy feature. Subsequently, I learned (correctly,
I believe) that the safety issue is overemphasized in that if a (control)
spring breaks, it's no big deal, as the tailwheel will caster if set up
correctly...and mine is....and will follow the plane. There are some pilots
that do not even have tailwheel control, preferring to allow the tailwheel
to follow with NO attachment to the rudder or any other control
device...none....think tail skid.
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: Landing gear in correct position??? |
>From what I can see of Francisco's airplane (very nice, might I add), it
appears to have some features of a model 5. Take a close look at the
horizontal stab. Not only will you see the single strut, but you'll see
where the front edge of the horizontal stab has the slots in the cover for
the stab workings so the horizontal stab leading edge can move up and down
with the trim which is typical of a 5. The vertical stab looks a bit small
for a 5, but that may be an illusion. The doors don't appear to be
typical of a 5, but more of a 4, but difficult to tell in the photos. If it
is a model 5, then it would also have had the grove gear mount attach points
welded in to the fuselage near the leading edge of the seat. At least
that's how mine came from the factory. Something is definitely puzzling
about it and yes, the gear does appear to be too far back, but again, maybe
just an illusion.
Pretty much all in life is but an illusion. Everything is just what people
tell you it is.
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 402+ TT
"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress."
- Joseph Joubert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Landing gear in correct position???
>
> On my IV, the distance from the center of the strut attachment hole to
> the leading edge of the Grove gear is 30 inches. The Grove gear
> attachment brackets on the Model IV utilize the front two pairs of float
> brackets on each side....the rear two pair are not used for landing gear
> on my plane. It looks like Francisco's gear is mounted too far back, but
> that's just my opinion.
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
> Sensenich 62x46
> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> New skis done and flying
> do not archive
>
>
> On Jan 17, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Zimmermans wrote:
>
>> Francisco
>> On my series 5 the distance from the back of the gear leg to the center
>> of the strut attachment bracket hole is 29 1/4 inches. I hope this is
>> useful.
>> Jim series 5 0-200 under const.
>> Lake Elmo MN 21D
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Francisco Drovetta
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 5:15 PM
>> Subject: Kitfox-List: Landing gear in correct position???
>>
>> Hi!
>> Id like to know if my spring aluminium (Grove Type) landing gear is in
>> correct position.
>> with this configuration, could be dangerous to land?
>> Photos attached.
>> Tks
>>
>>
>> Francisco Drovetta
>> Kitfox IV "brazilian version" with Cont O-200
>> So Paulo, SP
>> Brazil
>>
>> www.dcubj3.com.br
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - 270.10.8/1898 - Release Date: 1/16/2009 3:09 PM
>> ============================================================ _-
>> ============================================================ _-
>> contribution_-
>> ===========================================================
>
>
>
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: Landing gear in correct position??? |
Tks a lot Mr. Tom
I will send you this information to know to compare.
FD
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Jones" <nahsikhs@elltel.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:58 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Landing gear in correct position???
>
>
>> Id like to know if my spring aluminium (Grove Type) landing gear is in
>> correct position.
>> with this configuration, could be dangerous to land?
>> Photos attached.
>> Tks
>> Francisco Drovetta
>
>
> Francisco, It is difficult to tell from the picture. It looks like the
> main wheels would be several inches behind the wing leading edge if the
> plane was leveled for weighing? It also appears the nose is longer than a
> stock model 4.
>
> What is the measurement from wing leading edge to the prop?
>
> If you could also tell us the weights and arms you recorded for weight and
> balance it would give someone something to compare too.
>
> As is it looks to be easy to nose over if brakes are used very hard.
>
> --------
> 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=225397#225397
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
17:50
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: | Re: Landing gear in correct position??? |
Tks a lot Mr. Lynn.
Very useful information.
To lift tailwheel by hand is not hard, but the plane is balanced.
FD
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Landing gear in correct position???
>
> WOW, it looks too far rearward to me. Have you weighed it yet? Have
> you flown it yet? With an O-200 in there it looks to me like it would
> be WAY heavy on the main wheels, but somebody with more O-200
> experience could help more than me, but I'm pretty sure it's too far
> to the rear. You are using the 2nd and 3rd float brackets, and it
> looks like the 1st brackets are gone. That may have something to do
> with the "Brazilian Version" but it looks strange to me. It almost
> looks like the Grove gear was installed with the idea that it was
> going to be a nose-gear plane.
>
> I would have to say, yes, it looks dangerous to land. How hard is it
> to lift the tailwheel by hand?
>
> VERY nice-looking plane otherwise...beautiful!
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
> Sensenich 62x46
> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> New skis done and flying
>
>
> On Jan 17, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Francisco Drovetta wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>> Id like to know if my spring aluminium (Grove Type) landing gear
>> is in correct position.
>> with this configuration, could be dangerous to land?
>> Photos attached.
>> Tks
>>
>>
>> Francisco Drovetta
>> Kitfox IV "brazilian version" with Cont O-200
>> So Paulo, SP
>> Brazil
>>
>> www.dcubj3.com.br
>>
>>
>>
>> <Cpia (2) de Cpia de DSC06741.JPG>
>> <Cpia (3) de Cpia de DSC06738.JPG>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
17:50
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: Landing gear in correct position??? |
Francisco's kitfox is scratch built. Check his web site link under his signature
on the first post for some detailed information. Here's the direct link to
the Kitfox 4 section in case you can't read the language.
http://www.dcubj3.com.br/v1/Galeria/01Fuselagem/index.htm
--------
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=225476#225476
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: Landing gear in correct position??? |
Thanks, Tom. That answers a lot of questions.
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Jones" <nahsikhs@elltel.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:45 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Landing gear in correct position???
>
> Francisco's kitfox is scratch built. Check his web site link under his
> signature on the first post for some detailed information. Here's the
> direct link to the Kitfox 4 section in case you can't read the language.
> http://www.dcubj3.com.br/v1/Galeria/01Fuselagem/index.htm
>
> --------
> 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=225476#225476
>
>
>
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 |
|
On Sun, January 18, 2009 3:50 am, Lynn Matteson wrote:
> That picture was taken with load on it, Paul. At least with the full
> weight of the plane on it, but no pilot or passenger, and probably
> close to full tanks (26 gallons) (I know I report a low-fuel warning
> light frequently, but that's another issue : ) )
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "slightly angled in the wrong
> direction? This is the way it sits, and flies, and has flown and
> landed for two years, 600 hrs, and over 1300 landings...what could
> possibly be wrong?
Might be an optical illusion in your photo. But it looks like the axis of turning
rotation (through the kingpin) is slightly forward at the bottom. I surmised that
it
is probably closer to vertical or slightly trailing when you're in the plane.
> Without looking TOO hard for them the only "safety springs" I found
> were the Maule anti-shimmy springs (pictured) that I mentioned a few
> posts ago, that did not allow me to turn (easily) to the left. I
> mentioned that at the time I tried these springs was at a time before
> I had any tailwheel training, so I was maybe not as positive about
> what should be going on when I taxied the plane. When I bought these
> springs, I bought them for the "safety" feature, not necessarily the
> anti-shimmy feature. Subsequently, I learned (correctly, I believe)
> that the safety issue is overemphasized in that if a (control) spring
> breaks, it's no big deal, as the tailwheel will caster if set up
> correctly...and mine is....and will follow the plane. There are some
> pilots that do not even have tailwheel control, preferring to allow
> the tailwheel to follow with NO attachment to the rudder or any other
> control device...none....think tail skid.
The safety springs won't fall apart dangling the chains if they break. I have
symmetric ones. I think they are readily available at hardware stores like Home
Depot
and Lowes.
Look at Gary's picture three. That is definitely extremely in the wrong direction.
Reference the photo on page 17 of that Maule tailwheel writeup.
I just can't be certain of the king pin angle from the photo. Obviously your setup
is
working so it must operate close enough to vertical or slightly trailing. I also
notice you have a real steep tail spring angle. That would make it extend just
slightly when rolling too and means you have lower bending loads on your tail wheel
springs and the 1300 landings without it breaking is testimony to this.
I think copying your working setup is a good idea.
--
Paul A. Franz, P.E.
PAF Consulting Engineers
Office 425.440.9505
Cell 425.241.1618
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 |
|
I love these discussions - lots of theory vs. what works.
Next time we have someone post a question on how to eliminate tail wheel
shimmy, the consensus will be to go to the Mateson geometry to correct the
problem. Talking about shopping cart shimmy, check the offending castor
next time you get one. One sure way it will happen is if the nut holding
the pivot is loose or the bearings are shot, allowing the castor to go the
way of Maule. Or if it hit a curb and bent the structure to allow the Maule
geometry.
Of course the other way to stop tail wheel shimmy is to use forward stick on
roll out taking weight off the wheel which will reduce the Maule geonetry
and increase the Matteson geometry.
I guess it depends on what you want in a tailwheel - forward tracking or
absense of shimmy. For me personally, I'd toss the Maule instructions and
just copy Lynns photo and put it in my book - minus the third leaf, of
course.
Lowell Fitt
Cameron Park, CA
Model IV-1200 R-912 UL
Just about ready to cover fuselage and left wing.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul A. Franz, P.E." <paul@eucleides.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
> <paul@eucleides.com>
>
>
> On Sun, January 18, 2009 3:50 am, Lynn Matteson wrote:
>> That picture was taken with load on it, Paul. At least with the full
>> weight of the plane on it, but no pilot or passenger, and probably
>> close to full tanks (26 gallons) (I know I report a low-fuel warning
>> light frequently, but that's another issue : ) )
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "slightly angled in the wrong
>> direction? This is the way it sits, and flies, and has flown and
>> landed for two years, 600 hrs, and over 1300 landings...what could
>> possibly be wrong?
>
> Might be an optical illusion in your photo. But it looks like the axis of
> turning
> rotation (through the kingpin) is slightly forward at the bottom. I
> surmised that it
> is probably closer to vertical or slightly trailing when you're in the
> plane.
>
>> Without looking TOO hard for them the only "safety springs" I found
>> were the Maule anti-shimmy springs (pictured) that I mentioned a few
>> posts ago, that did not allow me to turn (easily) to the left. I
>> mentioned that at the time I tried these springs was at a time before
>> I had any tailwheel training, so I was maybe not as positive about
>> what should be going on when I taxied the plane. When I bought these
>> springs, I bought them for the "safety" feature, not necessarily the
>> anti-shimmy feature. Subsequently, I learned (correctly, I believe)
>> that the safety issue is overemphasized in that if a (control) spring
>> breaks, it's no big deal, as the tailwheel will caster if set up
>> correctly...and mine is....and will follow the plane. There are some
>> pilots that do not even have tailwheel control, preferring to allow
>> the tailwheel to follow with NO attachment to the rudder or any other
>> control device...none....think tail skid.
>
> The safety springs won't fall apart dangling the chains if they break. I
> have
> symmetric ones. I think they are readily available at hardware stores like
> Home Depot
> and Lowes.
>
> Look at Gary's picture three. That is definitely extremely in the wrong
> direction.
> Reference the photo on page 17 of that Maule tailwheel writeup.
>
> I just can't be certain of the king pin angle from the photo. Obviously
> your setup is
> working so it must operate close enough to vertical or slightly trailing.
> I also
> notice you have a real steep tail spring angle. That would make it extend
> just
> slightly when rolling too and means you have lower bending loads on your
> tail wheel
> springs and the 1300 landings without it breaking is testimony to this.
>
> I think copying your working setup is a good idea.
>
> --
> Paul A. Franz, P.E.
> PAF Consulting Engineers
> Office 425.440.9505
> Cell 425.241.1618
>
>
>
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 |
|
I think the important thing to remember is that the intersection of
the projected red line contacts the ground AHEAD of the wheel/tire. I
think that is the only concern to get the wheel to follow the
vehicle. How far it does has to do with the characteristics of how it
follows, and how much effort it takes to maneuver the vehicle...the
plane....when it is moved either forward or backwards.
Another thing to remember...my picture depicts an actual Maule
tailwheel assembly on a working aircraft while the drawing is a
rendering of a (supposed) Maule tailwheel on a piece of paper.
In the "name-dropping" department, I *could* give Ray Maule a call
and see what he has to say on the subject. His late father, B.D.
Maule invented the tailwheel assembly (that bears his name), about 4
miles from my house, at the local airport in Napoleon, Michigan
(3NP). There, are you sufficiently impressed? (I know I am) : )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 18, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Noel Loveys wrote:
> Can't help but to fool around with the old Photoshop pr the new
> Gimp ;-)
>
>
> Here is a picture I just did up showing the differences in the two
> setups.
>
>
> As you can see the bottom of the kingpin in the Fidoe setup points
> rearward while Lynns points forward. In both cases the blue
> line<nothing to do with hockey> is a vertical reference line while
> the redline <zoom zoom 912 comming> depicts the fore-aft angle of
> the kingpin.
>
>
> This can be corrected by either a piece put in to carry the
> tailwheel or possibly a shim under the bolt that holds the wheel to
> the spring.
>
>
> Lynns set up works for him so Id leave it as it is. Changing the
> angle of the king pin could cause problems with the spring. Either
> way I still think If I was flying with a tail spring Id have it
> checked NDT annually. Only takes a few minutes and cost is minimal.
>
>
> Noel
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-
> list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 8:21 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
>
>
> That picture was taken with load on it, Paul. At least with the
> full weight of the plane on it, but no pilot or passenger, and
> probably close to full tanks (26 gallons) (I know I report a low-
> fuel warning light frequently, but that's another issue : ) )
>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "slightly angled in the wrong
> direction? This is the way it sits, and flies, and has flown and
> landed for two years, 600 hrs, and over 1300 landings...what could
> possibly be wrong? I've flown it, others have flown and landed it,
> and you're gonna look at a picture and tell me it's wrong?
>
> c'mon...might be time to take that engineer hat off and don your
> pilots' cap. : )
>
>
> Without looking TOO hard for them the only "safety springs" I found
> were the Maule anti-shimmy springs (pictured) that I mentioned a
> few posts ago, that did not allow me to turn (easily) to the left.
> I mentioned that at the time I tried these springs was at a time
> before I had any tailwheel training, so I was maybe not as positive
> about what should be going on when I taxied the plane. When I
> bought these springs, I bought them for the "safety" feature, not
> necessarily the anti-shimmy feature. Subsequently, I learned
> (correctly, I believe) that the safety issue is overemphasized in
> that if a (control) spring breaks, it's no big deal, as the
> tailwheel will caster if set up correctly...and mine is....and will
> follow the plane. There are some pilots that do not even have
> tailwheel control, preferring to allow the tailwheel to follow with
> NO attachment to the rudder or any other control
> device...none....think tail skid.
>
>
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: Landing gear in correct position??? |
Deke-
I find it hard to be an illusion when the shot is straight onto the
side of the plane...unless it's been altered (Photoshop is funny
stuff). What we have to remember is that the plane is admittedly a
"Brazilian version" by his own admission.
I just looked at my plane's profile and it is nothing like
Francisco's in the area of the tail.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 18, 2009, at 11:10 AM, fox5flyer wrote:
> <fox5flyer@idealwifi.net>
>
>> From what I can see of Francisco's airplane (very nice, might I
>> add), it
> appears to have some features of a model 5. Take a close look at
> the horizontal stab. Not only will you see the single strut, but
> you'll see where the front edge of the horizontal stab has the
> slots in the cover for the stab workings so the horizontal stab
> leading edge can move up and down with the trim which is typical of
> a 5. The vertical stab looks a bit small for a 5, but that may be
> an illusion. The doors don't appear to be typical of a 5, but
> more of a 4, but difficult to tell in the photos. If it is a model
> 5, then it would also have had the grove gear mount attach points
> welded in to the fuselage near the leading edge of the seat. At
> least that's how mine came from the factory. Something is
> definitely puzzling about it and yes, the gear does appear to be
> too far back, but again, maybe just an illusion.
> Pretty much all in life is but an illusion. Everything is just
> what people tell you it is.
> Deke Morisse
> Mikado Michigan
> S5/Subaru/CAP 402+ TT
> "The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but
> progress."
> - Joseph Joubert
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 10:41 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Landing gear in correct position???
>
>
>>
>> On my IV, the distance from the center of the strut attachment
>> hole to the leading edge of the Grove gear is 30 inches. The
>> Grove gear attachment brackets on the Model IV utilize the front
>> two pairs of float brackets on each side....the rear two pair are
>> not used for landing gear on my plane. It looks like Francisco's
>> gear is mounted too far back, but that's just my opinion.
>>
>> Lynn Matteson
>> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
>> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
>> Sensenich 62x46
>> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
>> New skis done and flying
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 17, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Zimmermans wrote:
>>
>>> Francisco
>>> On my series 5 the distance from the back of the gear leg to the
>>> center of the strut attachment bracket hole is 29 1/4 inches. I
>>> hope this is useful.
>>> Jim series 5 0-200 under const.
>>> Lake Elmo MN 21D
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Francisco Drovetta
>>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 5:15 PM
>>> Subject: Kitfox-List: Landing gear in correct position???
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>> Id like to know if my spring aluminium (Grove Type) landing
>>> gear is in correct position.
>>> with this configuration, could be dangerous to land?
>>> Photos attached.
>>> Tks
>>>
>>>
>>> Francisco Drovetta
>>> Kitfox IV "brazilian version" with Cont O-200
>>> So Paulo, SP
>>> Brazil
>>>
>>> www.dcubj3.com.br
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - 270.10.8/1898 - Release Date: 1/16/2009 3:09 PM
>>> ============================================================ _-
>>> ============================================================ _-
>>> contribution_-
>>> ===========================================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
As mentioned before, I asked for some input from those who built their own
engine mounts. Fom the list, I got some information about the need for
thrust offset. Then a friend told me that he heard from one of the original
Kitfox designers that there was no thrust offset in the Model IV mount. A
little research showed that the offset is to counteract (in part) the
tendency of an airplane to yaw to the left during cruise from a number of
factors.
Now I have more specfiic questions. My first Model IV had a definite left
yaw tendency (it was a different airplane when I finally put on a trim tab).
I have never seen a rudder trim tab on a kitfox correcting a right yaw.
What is the experience of the list in this regard? Do you yaw left in
cruise requiring right rudder? Do you have a trim tab and if so, can you
fly hands and feet off? With or without a trim tab Do you yaw left in climb
and right in descent - in other words, right rudder in climb and left rudder
in descent (as it should be)?
Lowell
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 |
|
Regarding the "photo" on page 17, it is a drawing, and nowhere does
the author of that article show a good side photo of the TWO types of
tailwheel assemblies that he intersperses throughout the
article...the SFSA, and the SFS-P8A. He further states that the
"mechanism should only release when full left rudder is applied." I
am almost positive that mine breaks both ways, and in fact I've seen
assemblies where the cam is double-ended and ones where it is single-
ended. He probably has only dealt with the single-ended cams. By his
own admission, he has repaired 4 Maule tailwheels, so may not have
come upon the other options. In fact, the parts layout on page 2, Fig
2 shows the cam plate, but it is un-named or numbered...maybe he just
forgot there was such a cam, but he describes it later in the
article, calling it part #12.
Actually the number of landings is over 1300 total, but the original
tailwheel spring broke at landing #587 as I noted in my logbook. The
other 700+ were on the 3-leaf spring that I now use. These are
available through John and Debra McBean at www.kitfoxaircraft.com
(Man, he is gonna OWE me!!!!) : )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 18, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Paul A. Franz, P.E. wrote:
> <paul@eucleides.com>
>
>
> On Sun, January 18, 2009 3:50 am, Lynn Matteson wrote:
>> That picture was taken with load on it, Paul. At least with the full
>> weight of the plane on it, but no pilot or passenger, and probably
>> close to full tanks (26 gallons) (I know I report a low-fuel warning
>> light frequently, but that's another issue : ) )
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "slightly angled in the wrong
>> direction? This is the way it sits, and flies, and has flown and
>> landed for two years, 600 hrs, and over 1300 landings...what could
>> possibly be wrong?
>
> Might be an optical illusion in your photo. But it looks like the
> axis of turning
> rotation (through the kingpin) is slightly forward at the bottom. I
> surmised that it
> is probably closer to vertical or slightly trailing when you're in
> the plane.
>
>> Without looking TOO hard for them the only "safety springs" I found
>> were the Maule anti-shimmy springs (pictured) that I mentioned a few
>> posts ago, that did not allow me to turn (easily) to the left. I
>> mentioned that at the time I tried these springs was at a time before
>> I had any tailwheel training, so I was maybe not as positive about
>> what should be going on when I taxied the plane. When I bought these
>> springs, I bought them for the "safety" feature, not necessarily the
>> anti-shimmy feature. Subsequently, I learned (correctly, I believe)
>> that the safety issue is overemphasized in that if a (control) spring
>> breaks, it's no big deal, as the tailwheel will caster if set up
>> correctly...and mine is....and will follow the plane. There are some
>> pilots that do not even have tailwheel control, preferring to allow
>> the tailwheel to follow with NO attachment to the rudder or any other
>> control device...none....think tail skid.
>
> The safety springs won't fall apart dangling the chains if they
> break. I have
> symmetric ones. I think they are readily available at hardware
> stores like Home Depot
> and Lowes.
>
> Look at Gary's picture three. That is definitely extremely in the
> wrong direction.
> Reference the photo on page 17 of that Maule tailwheel writeup.
>
> I just can't be certain of the king pin angle from the photo.
> Obviously your setup is
> working so it must operate close enough to vertical or slightly
> trailing. I also
> notice you have a real steep tail spring angle. That would make it
> extend just
> slightly when rolling too and means you have lower bending loads on
> your tail wheel
> springs and the 1300 landings without it breaking is testimony to
> this.
>
> I think copying your working setup is a good idea.
>
> --
> Paul A. Franz, P.E.
> PAF Consulting Engineers
> Office 425.440.9505
> Cell 425.241.1618
>
>
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 |
|
On Sun, January 18, 2009 10:36 am, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>
> I love these discussions - lots of theory vs. what works.
>
> Next time we have someone post a question on how to eliminate tail wheel
> shimmy, the consensus will be to go to the Mateson geometry to correct the
> problem. Talking about shopping cart shimmy, check the offending castor
> next time you get one. One sure way it will happen is if the nut holding
> the pivot is loose or the bearings are shot, allowing the castor to go the
> way of Maule.
Not quite. The trailing angle is the stable tracking one and the one least likely
to
produce shimmy.
> Or if it hit a curb and bent the structure to allow the Maule
> geometry.
The geometry shown in the Maule writeup is not unique to the Maule tailwheel. It
applies to any caster wheel.
>
> Of course the other way to stop tail wheel shimmy is to use forward stick on
> roll out taking weight off the wheel which will reduce the Maule geonetry
> and increase the Matteson geometry.
Which works because unweighting the tailwheel reduces friction. Lynn's works in
my
opinion because with such a steep tail wheel spring, adding a little weight and
rolling pulls the wheel back and changes the king pin angle.
As it states in the tail wheel writeup, the trailing angle makes higher steering
forces but produces better stability which that author preferred.
> I guess it depends on what you want in a tailwheel - forward tracking or
> absense of shimmy.
That is not the compromise. Better tracking angle does eliminate shimmy. Canting
the
king pin angle makes it easier to induce a turn, but harder to straighten up. The
shimmy is caused when the restoring force caused by friction on the tire is right
at
the balance with the forces inducing turning caused when the tail will sink slightly
as the turn angle widens from the trailing position.
> For me personally, I'd toss the Maule instructions and
> just copy Lynns photo and put it in my book - minus the third leaf, of
> course.
The Maule instructions for king pin angle apply to any caster wheel.
A third leaf and having all the leaves taper makes the bending moment more uniform
and
reduces the probability of breaking. With three leaves, each has to be either narrower
or thinner or the spring will be too stiff. I think Lynn's really steep spring
angle
is contributing to not breaking easily as well.
--
Paul A. Franz, P.E.
PAF Consulting Engineers
Office 425.440.9505
Cell 425.241.1618
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LAT Flying through Canada |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: LAT Flying through Canada
>
> Good show, Noel! (on the engine change)
>
> Canada needs to further their reciprocal agreements to include the Sport
> Pilot...period! And of course I don't have, or WON'T try for the medical.
> I've seen too many guys go to the doc and the doc says
While I understand your desires, I'm not sure I agree that Canada NEEDS to
do anything. The US has been very clear that pilots flying certain classes
of licence here will not be allowed the priveledge of flying in or across US
airspace. So Recreational pilots from Canada cannot fly anything but an
ultralight in the US, and aircraft flying under our owner maintenance class
cannot fly in the US. The US Gov't has also stopped issuing liscenses
automatically to CDN pilots who have qualifying liscenses and credentials
and we must now apply to have such a liscense. Furthermore they have
indicated that restrictions are likely to increase.
Similarly (tit for tat I suppose) Canada will not recognize a US sport pilot
license here. Any ICAO recognized license PPL, ATP, etc will be recognized.
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: LAT Flying through Canada |
Good enough.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 18, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Dave G wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: LAT Flying through Canada
>
>
>>
>> Good show, Noel! (on the engine change)
>>
>> Canada needs to further their reciprocal agreements to include
>> the Sport Pilot...period! And of course I don't have, or WON'T
>> try for the medical. I've seen too many guys go to the doc and
>> the doc says
>
> While I understand your desires, I'm not sure I agree that Canada
> NEEDS to do anything. The US has been very clear that pilots flying
> certain classes of licence here will not be allowed the priveledge
> of flying in or across US airspace. So Recreational pilots from
> Canada cannot fly anything but an ultralight in the US, and
> aircraft flying under our owner maintenance class cannot fly in the
> US. The US Gov't has also stopped issuing liscenses automatically
> to CDN pilots who have qualifying liscenses and credentials and we
> must now apply to have such a liscense. Furthermore they have
> indicated that restrictions are likely to increase.
>
> Similarly (tit for tat I suppose) Canada will not recognize a US
> sport pilot license here. Any ICAO recognized license PPL, ATP, etc
> will be recognized.
>
>
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: turtle deck tab broke off |
Leonard, Jeff & Dee,
Thanks for the reply. I don't know for sure what it's covered with, but I did
get cans of Randolph's Butyrate adhesive and nitrate (non-tautening). I'm just
guessing it's some type of ceconite. I'll give the acetone method a try on
a small spot. Stan Tews had suggested once I could make new bearing material
out of some two part epoxy type steel stuff. But I'm not sure how I'd attach
it to the airframe. I know the current style I have doesn't look very good.
By the way, my flaperons drag lightly on the top of the fabric between the rear
turtle deck attach points are and the forward opening were model IV's have a
baggage area.
Dee, I'm not sure how to visualize your suggestion of putting sheet aluminum instead
of the turtle deck, can you expand that for me?
Well, back to see what I can do.
Thanks, I'll check back in a little while.
Jack
--------
J. Henry Hall
Kitfox II, 582, Tundra Tires,
rusty pilot.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225519#225519
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/broken_tab1_366.jpg
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 |
|
I might be missing something here Lynn, when I looked at the Maule article
it shows that the projected line of the Kingpin is 20 deg trailing the
perpendicular, not leading.
I have taxied and flown with my current set up and it does work - only
problem is that when taxiing on the unimproved taxi ways every slight turn
results in the tailwheel unlatching and due to the forward angle of the
king pin the wheel swings completely forward and ends up pointing the
wrong way. By using a lot of power and brakes I can get it to relatch but
it is certainly nothing like the previous set up.
On my old spring I could tap the brake while adding rudder and unlatch the
tail wheel at my discretion but now it's basically doing what it wants.
Gary
Gary Algate
Classic 4 jab2200
Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the addressees.
Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail in error, kindly notify us immediately by
telephone or e-mail and delete the message from your system. The sender
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of
this message which may arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
?This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we have
made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe and happy
Christmas".
Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
18/01/2009 10:30 PM
Please respond to
kitfox-list@matronics.com
To
kitfox-list@matronics.com
cc
Subject
Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
I gotta disagree with you, Gary...I can't see what is wrong with the
caster angle of the new spring. A projected line drawn through the
kingpin hits the ground ahead of the tire contact point with the
ground and that IS the definition of "caster" in the mechanical
sense. Yours may be a *bit* too far ahead, but it damn sure will not
wobble, and it WILL follow. Have you tried to move the plane, or
taxied it? What makes you feel this is wrong? If you push the plane
backwards, does the wheel swivel and the tail drop? It should. If you
move the plane forward, is it hard to overcome the backwards facing
wheel, but when it does, does it follow the plane? It should. Does it
lock into place once it is trailing the plane...it should, if the
Maule mechanism is working properly, is well lubricated, and the cam
and pin and spring are in place. Make damn sure that the spindle/
kingpin are well lubed. When mine becomes hard to "kick over" it is
because the spindle/kingpin lacks sufficient lubrication...a shot of
grease will cure it.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
On Jan 18, 2009, at 5:18 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
> Here's some photos of spring.
>
> 1st foto shows the break
> 2nd shows the reflex angle on the old spring
> 3rd shows the new castor angle which is the reverse of required
>
>
> I am making a small bracket that will bolt onto the tail spring and
> then reflex up 20 degrees. this should give me the require castor
> position.
>
> Regards
>
> Gary
> Gary Algate
> Kitfox Classic 4 jab2200
> Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
>
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - The Kitfox-List Email Forum -
=5F-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
=5F-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
=5F-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
=5F-= Photoshare, and much much more:
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
=5F-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - List Contribution Web Site -
=5F-= Thank you for your generous support!
=5F-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=5F-=======================
===========
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: engine mount |
> What is the experience of the list in this regard? Do you yaw left in
> cruise requiring right rudder? Do you have a trim tab and if so, can you
> fly hands and feet off? With or without a trim tab Do you yaw left in climb
> and right in descent - in other words, right rudder in climb and left rudder
> in descent (as it should be)?
>
> Lowell
Lowell, mine is a Classic 4 with a left hand turning propellor. It yaws opposite
all the planes I have flown with a right hand turning propellor. I have no
trim tabs and trim for level flight with a little up flap handle.
On take off when power is first added yaw is to the right, when the tail comes
up more yaw to the right, on climb yaw is to the right.
In level cruse there is a slight Yaw to the right. I can sometimes fly straight
and level hands off with no yaw, I think it depends on weight of the load and
power setting.
I haven't noticed what direction yaw is on reducing power.
As near as I can tell, the engine thrust line is straight ahead and a degree or
two down.
My personal theory on the yaw in level flight is it is due mostly to spiraling
slip stream.
--------
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=225525#225525
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: turtle deck tab broke off |
For what it is, I would go one of two, or probably both of the following ways:
1. Clean the base metal up with a wire wheel on a dremel and use structural adhesive
to re-attach the broken tab.
2. Make a plate that slips behind the tab your camloc fastener is anchored to,
drill out the back rivet on the camlock and rivet the new plate in place to "sandwich"
the bearing.
I would not mess with the covering.
--------
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=225536#225536
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: | Landing gear in correct position??? |
I had a look at all the pictures Fancisco had on the website... Boy was I
impressed! With the space, the cleanliness and the manner in which
everything was done. I'll bet they have built more than the one plane
there.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Landing gear in correct position???
Deke-
I find it hard to be an illusion when the shot is straight onto the
side of the plane...unless it's been altered (Photoshop is funny
stuff). What we have to remember is that the plane is admittedly a
"Brazilian version" by his own admission.
I just looked at my plane's profile and it is nothing like
Francisco's in the area of the tail.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 18, 2009, at 11:10 AM, fox5flyer wrote:
> <fox5flyer@idealwifi.net>
>
>> From what I can see of Francisco's airplane (very nice, might I
>> add), it
> appears to have some features of a model 5. Take a close look at
> the horizontal stab. Not only will you see the single strut, but
> you'll see where the front edge of the horizontal stab has the
> slots in the cover for the stab workings so the horizontal stab
> leading edge can move up and down with the trim which is typical of
> a 5. The vertical stab looks a bit small for a 5, but that may be
> an illusion. The doors don't appear to be typical of a 5, but
> more of a 4, but difficult to tell in the photos. If it is a model
> 5, then it would also have had the grove gear mount attach points
> welded in to the fuselage near the leading edge of the seat. At
> least that's how mine came from the factory. Something is
> definitely puzzling about it and yes, the gear does appear to be
> too far back, but again, maybe just an illusion.
> Pretty much all in life is but an illusion. Everything is just
> what people tell you it is.
> Deke Morisse
> Mikado Michigan
> S5/Subaru/CAP 402+ TT
> "The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but
> progress."
> - Joseph Joubert
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 10:41 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Landing gear in correct position???
>
>
>>
>> On my IV, the distance from the center of the strut attachment
>> hole to the leading edge of the Grove gear is 30 inches. The
>> Grove gear attachment brackets on the Model IV utilize the front
>> two pairs of float brackets on each side....the rear two pair are
>> not used for landing gear on my plane. It looks like Francisco's
>> gear is mounted too far back, but that's just my opinion.
>>
>> Lynn Matteson
>> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
>> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
>> Sensenich 62x46
>> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
>> New skis done and flying
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 17, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Zimmermans wrote:
>>
>>> Francisco
>>> On my series 5 the distance from the back of the gear leg to the
>>> center of the strut attachment bracket hole is 29 1/4 inches. I
>>> hope this is useful.
>>> Jim series 5 0-200 under const.
>>> Lake Elmo MN 21D
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Francisco Drovetta
>>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 5:15 PM
>>> Subject: Kitfox-List: Landing gear in correct position???
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>> Id like to know if my spring aluminium (Grove Type) landing
>>> gear is in correct position.
>>> with this configuration, could be dangerous to land?
>>> Photos attached.
>>> Tks
>>>
>>>
>>> Francisco Drovetta
>>> Kitfox IV "brazilian version" with Cont O-200
>>> So Paulo, SP
>>> Brazil
>>>
>>> www.dcubj3.com.br
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - 270.10.8/1898 - Release Date: 1/16/2009 3:09 PM
>>> ============================================================ _-
>>> ============================================================ _-
>>> contribution_-
>>> ===========================================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
The point I noticed most was his insistence on using unbalanced springs on
the tailwheel. I guess that will also help keep shimmy down.
Speaking of which I guess there is no law against running a piece of lock
wire up through the spring like is done on the exhaust systems. That would
be safe too.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
Regarding the "photo" on page 17, it is a drawing, and nowhere does
the author of that article show a good side photo of the TWO types of
tailwheel assemblies that he intersperses throughout the
article...the SFSA, and the SFS-P8A. He further states that the
"mechanism should only release when full left rudder is applied." I
am almost positive that mine breaks both ways, and in fact I've seen
assemblies where the cam is double-ended and ones where it is single-
ended. He probably has only dealt with the single-ended cams. By his
own admission, he has repaired 4 Maule tailwheels, so may not have
come upon the other options. In fact, the parts layout on page 2, Fig
2 shows the cam plate, but it is un-named or numbered...maybe he just
forgot there was such a cam, but he describes it later in the
article, calling it part #12.
Actually the number of landings is over 1300 total, but the original
tailwheel spring broke at landing #587 as I noted in my logbook. The
other 700+ were on the 3-leaf spring that I now use. These are
available through John and Debra McBean at www.kitfoxaircraft.com
(Man, he is gonna OWE me!!!!) : )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 18, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Paul A. Franz, P.E. wrote:
> <paul@eucleides.com>
>
>
> On Sun, January 18, 2009 3:50 am, Lynn Matteson wrote:
>> That picture was taken with load on it, Paul. At least with the full
>> weight of the plane on it, but no pilot or passenger, and probably
>> close to full tanks (26 gallons) (I know I report a low-fuel warning
>> light frequently, but that's another issue : ) )
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "slightly angled in the wrong
>> direction? This is the way it sits, and flies, and has flown and
>> landed for two years, 600 hrs, and over 1300 landings...what could
>> possibly be wrong?
>
> Might be an optical illusion in your photo. But it looks like the
> axis of turning
> rotation (through the kingpin) is slightly forward at the bottom. I
> surmised that it
> is probably closer to vertical or slightly trailing when you're in
> the plane.
>
>> Without looking TOO hard for them the only "safety springs" I found
>> were the Maule anti-shimmy springs (pictured) that I mentioned a few
>> posts ago, that did not allow me to turn (easily) to the left. I
>> mentioned that at the time I tried these springs was at a time before
>> I had any tailwheel training, so I was maybe not as positive about
>> what should be going on when I taxied the plane. When I bought these
>> springs, I bought them for the "safety" feature, not necessarily the
>> anti-shimmy feature. Subsequently, I learned (correctly, I believe)
>> that the safety issue is overemphasized in that if a (control) spring
>> breaks, it's no big deal, as the tailwheel will caster if set up
>> correctly...and mine is....and will follow the plane. There are some
>> pilots that do not even have tailwheel control, preferring to allow
>> the tailwheel to follow with NO attachment to the rudder or any other
>> control device...none....think tail skid.
>
> The safety springs won't fall apart dangling the chains if they
> break. I have
> symmetric ones. I think they are readily available at hardware
> stores like Home Depot
> and Lowes.
>
> Look at Gary's picture three. That is definitely extremely in the
> wrong direction.
> Reference the photo on page 17 of that Maule tailwheel writeup.
>
> I just can't be certain of the king pin angle from the photo.
> Obviously your setup is
> working so it must operate close enough to vertical or slightly
> trailing. I also
> notice you have a real steep tail spring angle. That would make it
> extend just
> slightly when rolling too and means you have lower bending loads on
> your tail wheel
> springs and the 1300 landings without it breaking is testimony to
> this.
>
> I think copying your working setup is a good idea.
>
> --
> Paul A. Franz, P.E.
> PAF Consulting Engineers
> Office 425.440.9505
> Cell 425.241.1618
>
>
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: 912S Ignition Wiring Question |
Rotax says not to check there ignition this way. You can damage the
ignition module. I have done this carefully and its hard to see the
spark. has to be in a dark unlit hanger, and small high intensity spark.
Paul
Model IV 912UL
----- Original Message -----
From: CDE2fly@aol.com
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 9:18 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: 912S Ignition Wiring Question
I'm nearing the completion of a Model 7 with a 912S installed and
added oil to the engine today. While I had the plugs pulled to purge
air from the oil system, I checked for spark by cranking the engine with
the starter and found none (the plug body was grounded to the engine
case). Based on some preliminary checks, it appears that the ignition
coil wires to the ignition switch are grounded while in the ignition
switch is in the "both" position.
I'm planning to trouble shoot a bit more tomorrow and plan to start by
disconnecting the "brown" wires from the ignition module to the ignition
switch and see if I have a spark. Can anyone confirm that this would be
the correct approach? It seems to me that the ignition switch simply
grounds the ignition coil(s) to eliminate spark with the key in the
"off" position (and of course the left and right coil with the key in
the appropriate position). With the ignition switch out of the ignition
coil loop, I assume I should have continuous spark as I crank the engine
over with the starter. Can anyone confirm?
Thanks!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
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: | First Flight - Brazilian Kitfox with O-200 |
Hi!
PU-KFV first flight today.
Two 30 minutes flights of exciting fun
After 1.5 year of construction !!!
I=B4m very happy.
Next step is modify grove type landing gear.
We have to study how can we do, because It don=B4t have 1st brackets..
Tks a lot
Francisco Drovetta
Kitfox IV "brazilian version" with Cont O-200
S=E3o Paulo, SP
Brazil
www.dcubj3.com.br
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: 912S Ignition Wiring Question |
Thanks Paul - is there a recommended way to check that the plugs are firing?
I can forward pictures of my wiring arrangement if that would be hlepful.
Chris
Nearly complete Model 7 912S
**************Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's
capital. (http://news.aol.com/main/politics/inauguration?ncid=emlcntusnews00000003)
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: 6 gallon wing tanks enough |
Thanks everyone for the input and comments.
To answer the questions about how far I will be going...well, I can't say for sure
right now, but if I end up with a much faster Kitfox it is likely I will be
going much further than I do now. So the more I think about it, I really should
add fuel capacity. I fly a friends Rans S7 at times, and because it flies
a bit slower than my current Kitfox, and has a higher fuel burn due to having
a 100 hp 912 (Vs my 81 hp 912ul), I agree that I generally would like have a
more comfortable range. So I am going to check into my options for adding more
gallonage.
Thanks again guys.
Paul
--------
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=225575#225575
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | disassemble c-box question |
I needed to disassemble the c-box on my 582 to change the seal in the back.
I got all the bolts out, took a piece of wood and a hammer. taped on the o
uter case and it only come about 3/8 ' open and will not come off . Has any
one had this happen to them-- Box has about 70 hrs on it- everyone I
have asked said it is suppose to just come right off- what can be holding
it up? IS there a trick to it?- It works fine, just leak small drops out
the back by the donut. (Don't like oil leaks) thanks for any input
Jerry Evans
KitfoxII
Magalia Calif.
N582'er'
kitfox 555
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 26 foot Clipped Wing Kitfox |
Paul,
Thanks for your input on my clipped wing idea. I have to admit my calculations
are very basic, derived after going through a few books on aerodynamics, and
then making some comparisons to aircraft like the Swick Clip Wing Taylorcraft,
Clip Wing Monocoupe, etc. I do know at one time Kitfox themselves had considered
doing this same mod, but I heard through the grapevine later that they had
concerns about owners overspeeding the airframe by using the larger hp 912
engines, and/or overspeeding during acro. That made sense to me, but I really
think if I am cautious about how the airplane gets used with the shorter wing,
things should be ok. And if the experiment proves to not do what I think it
should, then I'll just slide my wing tip extensions back in and go back to a
normal wingspan.
Paul
[quote="Paul A. Franz, P.E."]On Thu, January 15, 2009 10:35 pm, av8rps wrote:
>
>
> I would not do this modification unless it were specifically for increased roll
rate
> that you would want for aerobatics. Of course the bird would fit in a smaller
hangar,
> ride a little smoother in bumpy air and be just a little less likely to act like
a
> kite when tied down.
>
> --
> Paul A. Franz
> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
> Bellevue WA
> 425.241.1618 Cell
--------
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=225584#225584
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 26 foot Clipped Wing Kitfox |
Guy,
I agree that building a new design wing would be more practical for overall speed,
but I'm not quite wanting to change the Kitfox quite that much. My goal is
to see how efficient I can make the existing wing design with the airframe and
80 hp 912. And above all things, I just want to find out what it will do for
the airplane, as done by just cutting down the existing wing it is a pretty
easy thing to do. I just have to cut down the flaperons and make the wing slide
in extensions should I want to go back to the standard wing.
But thanks for the ideas. Heck, thinking about all this stuff is the fun part!
Paul
[/quote]
Paul,
I think it is a GREAT idea. But if you're going to go that
short, you might want to consider getting rid of the struts and
building a cantilever wing. That will save you a lot of drag. Or if
you go with a structural leading edge "D" section you could eliminate
one strut and dramatically increase the utility of vortex generators.
(They don't generally do much on our stock airfoil.) Or if you go
with the stock wing you could shorten the struts proportionally. That
would save some drag.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.[/quote]
--------
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=225585#225585
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
yup (to the lock wire running up the center), I did that for a while,
then just went "brave" (read stupid) the last time I had the thing
off a year and a half ago.
The unbalanced spring thing is the basis of the Maule anti-shimmy set-
up. Mine doesn't shimmy as is, however.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 18, 2009, at 6:32 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> The point I noticed most was his insistence on using unbalanced
> springs on
> the tailwheel. I guess that will also help keep shimmy down.
> Speaking of which I guess there is no law against running a piece
> of lock
> wire up through the spring like is done on the exhaust systems.
> That would
> be safe too.
>
> Noel
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: First Flight - Brazilian Kitfox with O-200 |
Francisco,
A beautiful aircraft and it looks great flying. Congratulations!
Thanks for the pictures.
Rick Weiss
N39RW Series V Speedster, 912ULS
SkyStar S/N 1
Port Orange, FL
On Jan 18, 2009, at 8:30 PM, Francisco Drovetta wrote:
> Hi!
> PU-KFV first flight today.
> Two 30 minutes flights of exciting fun
> After 1.5 year of construction !!!
> I=B4m very happy.
>
> Next step is modify grove type landing gear.
> We have to study how can we do, because It don=B4t have 1st brackets..
>
> Tks a lot
>
> Francisco Drovetta
> Kitfox IV "brazilian version" with Cont O-200
> S=E3o Paulo, SP
> Brazil
>
> www.dcubj3.com.br
> <DSC06766.JPG><DSC06765.JPG><DSC06769.JPG><DSC06797.JPG><DSC06795.JPG>
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
That article might be using a different Maule tailwheel assy than the
one I have or that you have....but remember, that article shows a
drawing, not a picture of the actual part. Drawing a picture takes
time...why would the author not just shoot a picture if he had all
the parts right there to do all the other pictures in the article?
This question leads me to view with some "suspicion" the whole
article. Bottom line...mine works, and that beats all the slide-rule
calculations and theories. The engineers also said the bumble bee
could not fly and that dragsters would/could never reach 150 miles
per hour in a quarter-mile, either...go figure, as the Californians
like to say.
Maybe the newer spring angle is doing something to the spring, lock-
pin,steering arm interface, I don't know. Obviously something has
changed, and the spring angle is the only thing different, so you're
doing what you have to do to change that. Because of the lack of a
bend-back angle to the spring, your tail must be sitting higher, and
this could lead to some differences in the plane's behavior.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
On Jan 18, 2009, at 4:33 PM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
> I might be missing something here Lynn, when I looked at the Maule
> article it shows that the projected line of the Kingpin is 20 deg
> trailing the perpendicular, not leading.
>
> I have taxied and flown with my current set up and it does work -
> only problem is that when taxiing on the unimproved taxi ways every
> slight turn results in the tailwheel unlatching and due to the
> forward angle of the king pin the wheel swings completely forward
> and ends up pointing the wrong way. By using a lot of power and
> brakes I can get it to relatch but it is certainly nothing like the
> previous set up.
>
> On my old spring I could tap the brake while adding rudder and
> unlatch the tail wheel at my discretion but now it's basically
> doing what it wants.
>
> Gary
>
> Gary Algate
> Classic 4 jab2200
> Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: First Flight - Brazilian Kitfox with O-200 |
Can't argue with success, can you? Congratulations, Francisco.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 18, 2009, at 8:30 PM, Francisco Drovetta wrote:
> Hi!
> PU-KFV first flight today.
> Two 30 minutes flights of exciting fun
> After 1.5 year of construction !!!
> Im very happy.
>
> Next step is modify grove type landing gear.
> We have to study how can we do, because It dont have 1st brackets..
>
> Tks a lot
>
> Francisco Drovetta
> Kitfox IV "brazilian version" with Cont O-200
> So Paulo, SP
> Brazil
>
> www.dcubj3.com.br
> <DSC06766.JPG>
> <DSC06765.JPG>
> <DSC06769.JPG>
> <DSC06797.JPG>
> <DSC06795.JPG>
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Gary Algate
SMC, Exploration
Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the addressees.
Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail in error, kindly notify us immediately by
telephone or e-mail and delete the message from your system. The sender
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of
this message which may arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
?This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we have
made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe and happy
Christmas".
I can't disagree with your reasoning. If yours works then that's all that
matters.
I have the adaptor in my hand and hope to get out to the plane this
evening to make the mods - I'll report back.
Regards
Gary
Classic 4 Jab 2200
Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
19/01/2009 02:57 PM
Please respond to
kitfox-list@matronics.com
To
kitfox-list@matronics.com
cc
Subject
Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
Maybe the newer spring angle is doing something to the spring, lock-
pin,steering arm interface, I don't know. Obviously something has
changed, and the spring angle is the only thing different, so you're
doing what you have to do to change that. Because of the lack of a
bend-back angle to the spring, your tail must be sitting higher, and
this could lead to some differences in the plane's behavior.
Lynn Matteson
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
The spring is now holding the planes' tail higher, is it not? This
might be enough to cause the weight loading to change on the
tailwheel assembly and therefore change the characteristics of the
handling....think wobbly, empty grocery cart versus full and heavy
and (maybe) not wobbly cart...worth a thought.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
On Jan 18, 2009, at 11:47 PM, Lynn Matteson wrote:
> Obviously something has changed, and the spring angle is the only
> thing different, so you're doing what you have to do to change
> that. Because of the lack of a bend-back angle to the spring, your
> tail must be sitting higher, and this could lead to some
> differences in the plane's behavior.
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
> Sensenich 62x46
> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> New skis done and flying
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2009, at 4:33 PM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
>>
>> I might be missing something here Lynn, when I looked at the Maule
>> article it shows that the projected line of the Kingpin is 20 deg
>> trailing the perpendicular, not leading.
>>
>> I have taxied and flown with my current set up and it does work -
>> only problem is that when taxiing on the unimproved taxi ways
>> every slight turn results in the tailwheel unlatching and due to
>> the forward angle of the king pin the wheel swings completely
>> forward and ends up pointing the wrong way. By using a lot of
>> power and brakes I can get it to relatch but it is certainly
>> nothing like the previous set up.
>>
>> On my old spring I could tap the brake while adding rudder and
>> unlatch the tail wheel at my discretion but now it's basically
>> doing what it wants.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> Gary Algate
>> Classic 4 jab2200
>> Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
>
>
Message 47
| 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'll be waiting...errrr...sleeping, but anticipating...: )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:05 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
>
> Gary Algate
> SMC, Exploration
> Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
>
> I can't disagree with your reasoning. If yours works then that's
> all that matters.
>
> I have the adaptor in my hand and hope to get out to the plane this
> evening to make the mods - I'll report back.
>
> Regards
>
> Gary
> Classic 4 Jab 2200
>
>
> Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> 19/01/2009 02:57 PM
> Please respond to
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
>
> To
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
> cc
> Subject
> Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
>
>
> Maybe the newer spring angle is doing something to the spring, lock-
> pin,steering arm interface, I don't know. Obviously something has
> changed, and the spring angle is the only thing different, so you're
> doing what you have to do to change that. Because of the lack of a
> bend-back angle to the spring, your tail must be sitting higher, and
> this could lead to some differences in the plane's behavior.
>
> Lynn Matteson
>
>
> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> ===========================================================
Message 48
| 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 |
|
Not wanting to beat a dead horse, but maybe Maule needed the antishimmy
springs because of the angle they recommended for the pivot axis.
I made three drawings that illustrates the concept. The drawings are not
to scale but give relative dimensions. Drawing one is the tailwheel in the
Matteson configuration. Notice the distance between the pivot axis and the
contact point - wheel to ground. In this illustration it is 1.54 inches.
The second drawing shows the axis vertical, which I suspect would be ideal
in an unreal world. In this instance the distance between pivot axis and
ground contact is 1.35 inches. The third illustration is in the Maule
configuration and check the distance there. Now no one will ever convince
me that the third configuration will be most resistant to shimmy or best
tracking. In fact the more the angle is changed toward that direction, the
less the distance will be and tracking will be poorer and shimmy will become
predictable and inevitable.
The critical concept here is not the pivot angle vs the vertical, but rather
the geometry of the wheel design and the pivot angle which determines the
distance between the point the wheel contacts the ground and the pivot axis.
And the real issue is not the axis at rest, but the angle of the axis under
varying loads as suspended from the end of a spring, the angle is always
changing resulting in changes in the tracking distance between the ground
contact point and the pivot axis. Moving the axis more to the Matteson
angle at rest will most likely never exceed a vertical angle under load.
Going to the Maule angle on the other hand will decrease the distance under
load and could come close to zero - completely unstable.
P.S. I had a shimmy problem early with my first Model IV. I corrected it
with a tapered shim between the spring and the wheel mount that effectively
increased the distance between wheel contact and pivot axis.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
>
> yup (to the lock wire running up the center), I did that for a while,
> then just went "brave" (read stupid) the last time I had the thing off a
> year and a half ago.
>
> The unbalanced spring thing is the basis of the Maule anti-shimmy set- up.
> Mine doesn't shimmy as is, however.
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
> Sensenich 62x46
> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> New skis done and flying
> do not archive
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2009, at 6:32 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
>>
>> The point I noticed most was his insistence on using unbalanced springs
>> on
>> the tailwheel. I guess that will also help keep shimmy down.
>> Speaking of which I guess there is no law against running a piece of
>> lock
>> wire up through the spring like is done on the exhaust systems. That
>> would
>> be safe too.
>>
>> Noel
>
>
>
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
One other thing to remember, Gary....I'm sure your new spring setup
has one of the two main leaves with a larger hole on the tailwheel
ass'y end, does it not? Make sure that you don't tighten that
retaining bolt rock solid, but allow it a *tiny* bit of less-than
tight torque, so that the springs can flex, and thus gain and lose
comparative length....you know this as an engineer, right? (Not that
I'm holding that against you) : )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:05 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
>
> Gary Algate
> SMC, Exploration
> Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
>
>
> This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the
> addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this message by persons or entities other than the intended
> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the
> message from your system. The sender does not accept liability for
> any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may
> arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
> This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we
> have made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe
> and happy Christmas".
>
>
> I can't disagree with your reasoning. If yours works then that's
> all that matters.
>
> I have the adaptor in my hand and hope to get out to the plane this
> evening to make the mods - I'll report back.
>
> Regards
>
> Gary
> Classic 4 Jab 2200
>
>
> Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> 19/01/2009 02:57 PM
> Please respond to
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
>
> To
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
> cc
> Subject
> Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
>
>
> Maybe the newer spring angle is doing something to the spring, lock-
> pin,steering arm interface, I don't know. Obviously something has
> changed, and the spring angle is the only thing different, so you're
> doing what you have to do to change that. Because of the lack of a
> bend-back angle to the spring, your tail must be sitting higher, and
> this could lead to some differences in the plane's behavior.
>
> Lynn Matteson
>
>
> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> ===========================================================
Message 50
| 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 |
|
How could you possibly consider sleeping when something as "exciting" as
this is going on. You need to get your night VFR endorsement so that you
can make good use of all this "spare" time you have.
Gary Algate
SMC, Exploration
Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the addressees.
Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail in error, kindly notify us immediately by
telephone or e-mail and delete the message from your system. The sender
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of
this message which may arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
?This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we have
made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe and happy
Christmas".
Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
19/01/2009 03:24 PM
Please respond to
kitfox-list@matronics.com
To
kitfox-list@matronics.com
cc
Subject
Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
I'll be waiting...errrr...sleeping, but anticipating...: )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:05 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
>
> Gary Algate
> SMC, Exploration
> Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
>
> I can't disagree with your reasoning. If yours works then that's
> all that matters.
>
> I have the adaptor in my hand and hope to get out to the plane this
> evening to make the mods - I'll report back.
>
> Regards
>
> Gary
> Classic 4 Jab 2200
>
>
> Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> 19/01/2009 02:57 PM
> Please respond to
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
>
> To
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
> cc
> Subject
> Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
>
>
> Maybe the newer spring angle is doing something to the spring, lock-
> pin,steering arm interface, I don't know. Obviously something has
> changed, and the spring angle is the only thing different, so you're
> doing what you have to do to change that. Because of the lack of a
> bend-back angle to the spring, your tail must be sitting higher, and
> this could lead to some differences in the plane's behavior.
>
> Lynn Matteson
>
>
> www.matronics.com/contribution =5F-
> ========================
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - The Kitfox-List Email Forum -
=5F-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
=5F-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
=5F-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
=5F-= Photoshare, and much much more:
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
=5F-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - List Contribution Web Site -
=5F-= Thank you for your generous support!
=5F-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=5F-=======================
===========
Message 51
| 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 |
|
Yes it certainly sits higher but the angle is really the problem I think.
If mine is sitting stationery and I give the tail a push to unlatch the
tail wheel it will swing completely 180 deg so that the tail wheel assy
faces backwards. It's then a doozy trying to get it turned around.
I'm pretty sure that this adaptor that I have will address this - if I can
get it to the same angle as before I will be happy as I never had any
tailwheel problems prior to the spring change.
Gary
Gary Algate
SMC, Exploration
Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the addressees.
Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail in error, kindly notify us immediately by
telephone or e-mail and delete the message from your system. The sender
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of
this message which may arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
?This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we have
made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe and happy
Christmas".
Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
19/01/2009 03:17 PM
Please respond to
kitfox-list@matronics.com
To
kitfox-list@matronics.com
cc
Subject
Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
The spring is now holding the planes' tail higher, is it not? This
might be enough to cause the weight loading to change on the
tailwheel assembly and therefore change the characteristics of the
handling....think wobbly, empty grocery cart versus full and heavy
and (maybe) not wobbly cart...worth a thought.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
On Jan 18, 2009, at 11:47 PM, Lynn Matteson wrote:
> Obviously something has changed, and the spring angle is the only
> thing different, so you're doing what you have to do to change
> that. Because of the lack of a bend-back angle to the spring, your
> tail must be sitting higher, and this could lead to some
> differences in the plane's behavior.
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
> Sensenich 62x46
> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> New skis done and flying
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2009, at 4:33 PM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
>>
>> I might be missing something here Lynn, when I looked at the Maule
>> article it shows that the projected line of the Kingpin is 20 deg
>> trailing the perpendicular, not leading.
>>
>> I have taxied and flown with my current set up and it does work -
>> only problem is that when taxiing on the unimproved taxi ways
>> every slight turn results in the tailwheel unlatching and due to
>> the forward angle of the king pin the wheel swings completely
>> forward and ends up pointing the wrong way. By using a lot of
>> power and brakes I can get it to relatch but it is certainly
>> nothing like the previous set up.
>>
>> On my old spring I could tap the brake while adding rudder and
>> unlatch the tail wheel at my discretion but now it's basically
>> doing what it wants.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> Gary Algate
>> Classic 4 jab2200
>> Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
>
>
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - The Kitfox-List Email Forum -
=5F-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
=5F-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
=5F-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
=5F-= Photoshare, and much much more:
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
=5F-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - List Contribution Web Site -
=5F-= Thank you for your generous support!
=5F-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=5F-=======================
===========
Message 52
| 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 |
|
Yes Lynn - in fact they actually gave me a toque setting for the bolt. I'm
glad you reminded me though as I probably would have put the adaptor on
and then tensioned it right up.
And enough jokes about engineers - Ha
Gary
Gary Algate
SMC, Exploration
Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the addressees.
Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail in error, kindly notify us immediately by
telephone or e-mail and delete the message from your system. The sender
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of
this message which may arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
?This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we have
made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe and happy
Christmas".
Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
19/01/2009 03:37 PM
Please respond to
kitfox-list@matronics.com
To
kitfox-list@matronics.com
cc
Subject
Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
One other thing to remember, Gary....I'm sure your new spring setup
has one of the two main leaves with a larger hole on the tailwheel
ass'y end, does it not? Make sure that you don't tighten that
retaining bolt rock solid, but allow it a *tiny* bit of less-than
tight torque, so that the springs can flex, and thus gain and lose
comparative length....you know this as an engineer, right? (Not that
I'm holding that against you) : )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:05 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
>
> Gary Algate
> SMC, Exploration
> Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
>
>
> This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the
> addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this message by persons or entities other than the intended
> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the
> message from your system. The sender does not accept liability for
> any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may
> arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
> ?This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we
> have made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe
> and happy Christmas".
>
>
> I can't disagree with your reasoning. If yours works then that's
> all that matters.
>
> I have the adaptor in my hand and hope to get out to the plane this
> evening to make the mods - I'll report back.
>
> Regards
>
> Gary
> Classic 4 Jab 2200
>
>
> Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> 19/01/2009 02:57 PM
> Please respond to
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
>
> To
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
> cc
> Subject
> Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
>
>
> Maybe the newer spring angle is doing something to the spring, lock-
> pin,steering arm interface, I don't know. Obviously something has
> changed, and the spring angle is the only thing different, so you're
> doing what you have to do to change that. Because of the lack of a
> bend-back angle to the spring, your tail must be sitting higher, and
> this could lead to some differences in the plane's behavior.
>
> Lynn Matteson
>
>
> www.matronics.com/contribution =5F-
> ========================
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - The Kitfox-List Email Forum -
=5F-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
=5F-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
=5F-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
=5F-= Photoshare, and much much more:
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
=5F-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - List Contribution Web Site -
=5F-= Thank you for your generous support!
=5F-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=5F-=======================
===========
Message 53
| 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 |
|
Keep in mind that the third illustration is...I'm guessing....the one
from the independent article written by Drew Fidoe, and does not
necessarily depict the actual Maule ass'y. I'd want to verify that
configuration before accepting it as fact. But you are right, Lowell,
the drawings as shown would tend to support the better tracking of
the so-called Matteson configuration. At least I know *that* one
works, and as I've pointed out ad nauseam, what is working beats all
the drawings and theories when it comes to taking the checkered
flag...(ohmygod, is it THAT close to Daytona ?)
Another thing to remember....the Maule ass'y, which is used on a lot
of Kitfoxes, I'm assuming, was designed for a much heavier plane, was
it not? A stiffer spring, different shape, more tail weight? And we
are...or the factory is...installing it on a lighter (in the case of
the I,II, III,IV versus the V) plane and expecting it to perform like
it was installed on a Maule. Maybe a degree or two here or there can
really upset the apple cart in this respect.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:14 AM, Lowell Fitt wrote:
> Not wanting to beat a dead horse, but maybe Maule needed the
> antishimmy springs because of the angle they recommended for the
> pivot axis.
>
> I made three drawings that illustrates the concept. The drawings
> are not to scale but give relative dimensions. Drawing one is the
> tailwheel in the Matteson configuration. Notice the distance
> between the pivot axis and the
> contact point - wheel to ground. In this illustration it is 1.54
> inches. The second drawing shows the axis vertical, which I suspect
> would be ideal in an unreal world. In this instance the distance
> between pivot axis and
> ground contact is 1.35 inches. The third illustration is in the
> Maule configuration and check the distance there. Now no one will
> ever convince me that the third configuration will be most
> resistant to shimmy or best tracking. In fact the more the angle
> is changed toward that direction, the less the distance will be and
> tracking will be poorer and shimmy will become predictable and
> inevitable.
>
> The critical concept here is not the pivot angle vs the vertical,
> but rather the geometry of the wheel design and the pivot angle
> which determines the distance between the point the wheel contacts
> the ground and the pivot axis. And the real issue is not the axis
> at rest, but the angle of the axis under varying loads as suspended
> from the end of a spring, the angle is always changing resulting
> in changes in the tracking distance between the ground contact
> point and the pivot axis. Moving the axis more to the Matteson
> angle at rest will most likely never exceed a vertical angle under
> load. Going to the Maule angle on the other hand will decrease the
> distance under load and could come close to zero - completely
> unstable.
>
> P.S. I had a shimmy problem early with my first Model IV. I
> corrected it with a tapered shim between the spring and the wheel
> mount that effectively increased the distance between wheel contact
> and pivot axis.
>
> Lowell
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 8:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
>
>
>>
>> yup (to the lock wire running up the center), I did that for a
>> while, then just went "brave" (read stupid) the last time I had
>> the thing off a year and a half ago.
>>
>> The unbalanced spring thing is the basis of the Maule anti-shimmy
>> set- up. Mine doesn't shimmy as is, however.
>>
>> Lynn Matteson
>> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
>> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
>> Sensenich 62x46
>> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
>> New skis done and flying
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2009, at 6:32 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>>
>>> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>>>
>>> The point I noticed most was his insistence on using unbalanced
>>> springs on
>>> the tailwheel. I guess that will also help keep shimmy down.
>>> Speaking of which I guess there is no law against running a
>>> piece of lock
>>> wire up through the spring like is done on the exhaust systems.
>>> That would
>>> be safe too.
>>>
>>> Noel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <Tailwheel geometry O.jpg>
Message 54
| 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 |
|
That'll be a cold day in hell....wait a minute...it IS cold, and this
IS Hell, or close to it (there actually is a Hell, Michigan somewhat
nearby) so why not? Nahhh, the Sport Pilot thing again outlawing any
night flying...drat! Believe me, when I woke up at 2 am the other
day, and couldn't get back to sleep and I watched the thermometer
read 16.1 degrees F. below zero...then watched as it became warmer
and warmer, until it read about 3 above zero 4 hours later....yes,
you might say I have some spare time on my hands. : )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:30 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
> How could you possibly consider sleeping when something as
> "exciting" as this is going on. You need to get your night VFR
> endorsement so that you can make good use of all this "spare" time
> you have.
>
> Gary Algate
> SMC, Exploration
> Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
>
>
> This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the
> addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this message by persons or entities other than the intended
> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the
> message from your system. The sender does not accept liability for
> any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may
> arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
> This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we
> have made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe
> and happy Christmas".
>
>
> Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> 19/01/2009 03:24 PM
> Please respond to
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
>
> To
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
> cc
> Subject
> Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
>
>
>
> I'll be waiting...errrr...sleeping, but anticipating...: )
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
> Sensenich 62x46
> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> New skis done and flying
> do not archive
>
>
> On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:05 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Gary Algate
> > SMC, Exploration
> > Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
> >
> > I can't disagree with your reasoning. If yours works then that's
> > all that matters.
> >
> > I have the adaptor in my hand and hope to get out to the plane this
> > evening to make the mods - I'll report back.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Gary
> > Classic 4 Jab 2200
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> > Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > 19/01/2009 02:57 PM
> > Please respond to
> > kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >
> > To
> > kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > cc
> > Subject
> > Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe the newer spring angle is doing something to the spring, lock-
> > pin,steering arm interface, I don't know. Obviously something has
> > changed, and the spring angle is the only thing different, so you're
> > doing what you have to do to change that. Because of the lack of a
> > bend-back angle to the spring, your tail must be sitting higher, and
> > this could lead to some differences in the plane's behavior.
> >
> > Lynn Matteson
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> > ==================================
>
>
> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> ===========================================================
Message 55
| 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 |
|
Yup, that's a sure sign of having too much kingpin inclination. Your
adapter should remedy that problem. Another thought is to make a
tapered shim that would go between the fuselage and the spring, being
fatter at the leading edge of the shim.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:30 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
> Yes it certainly sits higher but the angle is really the problem I
> think. If mine is sitting stationery and I give the tail a push to
> unlatch the tail wheel it will swing completely 180 deg so that the
> tail wheel assy faces backwards. It's then a doozy trying to get it
> turned around.
>
> I'm pretty sure that this adaptor that I have will address this -
> if I can get it to the same angle as before I will be happy as I
> never had any tailwheel problems prior to the spring change.
>
> Gary
>
> Gary Algate
> SMC, Exploration
> Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
>
>
> This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the
> addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this message by persons or entities other than the intended
> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the
> message from your system. The sender does not accept liability for
> any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may
> arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
> This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we
> have made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe
> and happy Christmas".
>
>
> Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> 19/01/2009 03:17 PM
> Please respond to
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
>
> To
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
> cc
> Subject
> Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
>
>
>
> The spring is now holding the planes' tail higher, is it not? This
> might be enough to cause the weight loading to change on the
> tailwheel assembly and therefore change the characteristics of the
> handling....think wobbly, empty grocery cart versus full and heavy
> and (maybe) not wobbly cart...worth a thought.
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
> Sensenich 62x46
> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> New skis done and flying
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2009, at 11:47 PM, Lynn Matteson wrote:
>
>
>
> > Obviously something has changed, and the spring angle is the only
> > thing different, so you're doing what you have to do to change
> > that. Because of the lack of a bend-back angle to the spring, your
> > tail must be sitting higher, and this could lead to some
> > differences in the plane's behavior.
> >
> > Lynn Matteson
> > Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> > Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
> > Sensenich 62x46
> > Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> > New skis done and flying
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 18, 2009, at 4:33 PM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I might be missing something here Lynn, when I looked at the Maule
> >> article it shows that the projected line of the Kingpin is 20 deg
> >> trailing the perpendicular, not leading.
> >>
> >> I have taxied and flown with my current set up and it does work -
> >> only problem is that when taxiing on the unimproved taxi ways
> >> every slight turn results in the tailwheel unlatching and due to
> >> the forward angle of the king pin the wheel swings completely
> >> forward and ends up pointing the wrong way. By using a lot of
> >> power and brakes I can get it to relatch but it is certainly
> >> nothing like the previous set up.
> >>
> >> On my old spring I could tap the brake while adding rudder and
> >> unlatch the tail wheel at my discretion but now it's basically
> >> doing what it wants.
> >>
> >> Gary
> >>
> >> Gary Algate
> >> Classic 4 jab2200
> >> Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> ===========================================================
Message 56
| 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 |
|
Please, just one more: "You can always tell an engineer....but you
can't tell him much."
What IS the torque setting?....I just do mine by hand until it feels
right....seat-of-the-pants engineering as it were (or shade-tree
mechanics, to be more to the point)
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:46 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
> Yes Lynn - in fact they actually gave me a toque setting for the
> bolt. I'm glad you reminded me though as I probably would have put
> the adaptor on and then tensioned it right up.
>
> And enough jokes about engineers - Ha
>
> Gary
>
> Gary Algate
> SMC, Exploration
> Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
>
>
> This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the
> addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this message by persons or entities other than the intended
> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the
> message from your system. The sender does not accept liability for
> any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may
> arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
> This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we
> have made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe
> and happy Christmas".
>
>
> Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> 19/01/2009 03:37 PM
> Please respond to
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
>
> To
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
> cc
> Subject
> Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
>
>
>
> One other thing to remember, Gary....I'm sure your new spring setup
> has one of the two main leaves with a larger hole on the tailwheel
> ass'y end, does it not? Make sure that you don't tighten that
> retaining bolt rock solid, but allow it a *tiny* bit of less-than
> tight torque, so that the springs can flex, and thus gain and lose
> comparative length....you know this as an engineer, right? (Not that
> I'm holding that against you) : )
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
> Sensenich 62x46
> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> New skis done and flying
> do not archive
>
>
> On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:05 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Gary Algate
> > SMC, Exploration
> > Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
> >
> >
> > This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the
> > addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> > this message by persons or entities other than the intended
> > recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> > kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the
> > message from your system. The sender does not accept liability for
> > any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may
> > arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
> > This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we
> > have made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe
> > and happy Christmas".
> >
> >
> > I can't disagree with your reasoning. If yours works then that's
> > all that matters.
> >
> > I have the adaptor in my hand and hope to get out to the plane this
> > evening to make the mods - I'll report back.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Gary
> > Classic 4 Jab 2200
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> > Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > 19/01/2009 02:57 PM
> > Please respond to
> > kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >
> > To
> > kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > cc
> > Subject
> > Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe the newer spring angle is doing something to the spring, lock-
> > pin,steering arm interface, I don't know. Obviously something has
> > changed, and the spring angle is the only thing different, so you're
> > doing what you have to do to change that. Because of the lack of a
> > bend-back angle to the spring, your tail must be sitting higher, and
> > this could lead to some differences in the plane's behavior.
> >
> > Lynn Matteson
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> > ==================================
>
>
> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> ===========================================================
Message 57
| 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 |
|
Yet another thought (as I lay in bed trying to forget this subject)
regarding the torqued bolt....why not use a castellated bolt, and
washers and cotter pin, perhaps drilling an additional cross-hole to
fine-tune the torque setting. I know mine gets loose and I have to
tighten it occasionally. And given the dictates of 43.13, which
stipulates (somewhere, I'm sure) that any bolt subject to movement
shall use a nut and cotter pin rather than a self-locking nut, or
words to that effect...doesn't it? This isn't the classic swiveling
bolt condition where the castle nut and cotter pin is required, but
it is similar.
I greased my leaves before I assembled the spring, for whatever
that's worth.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:46 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
> Yes Lynn - in fact they actually gave me a toque setting for the
> bolt. I'm glad you reminded me though as I probably would have put
> the adaptor on and then tensioned it right up.
>
> And enough jokes about engineers - Ha
>
> Gary
>
> Gary Algate
> SMC, Exploration
> Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
>
>
> This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the
> addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this message by persons or entities other than the intended
> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the
> message from your system. The sender does not accept liability for
> any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may
> arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
> This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we
> have made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe
> and happy Christmas".
>
>
> Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> 19/01/2009 03:37 PM
> Please respond to
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
>
> To
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
> cc
> Subject
> Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
>
>
>
> One other thing to remember, Gary....I'm sure your new spring setup
> has one of the two main leaves with a larger hole on the tailwheel
> ass'y end, does it not? Make sure that you don't tighten that
> retaining bolt rock solid, but allow it a *tiny* bit of less-than
> tight torque, so that the springs can flex, and thus gain and lose
> comparative length....you know this as an engineer, right? (Not that
> I'm holding that against you) : )
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
> Sensenich 62x46
> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> New skis done and flying
> do not archive
>
>
> On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:05 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Gary Algate
> > SMC, Exploration
> > Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
> >
> >
> > This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the
> > addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> > this message by persons or entities other than the intended
> > recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> > kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the
> > message from your system. The sender does not accept liability for
> > any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may
> > arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
> > This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we
> > have made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe
> > and happy Christmas".
> >
> >
> > I can't disagree with your reasoning. If yours works then that's
> > all that matters.
> >
> > I have the adaptor in my hand and hope to get out to the plane this
> > evening to make the mods - I'll report back.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Gary
> > Classic 4 Jab 2200
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> > Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > 19/01/2009 02:57 PM
> > Please respond to
> > kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >
> > To
> > kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > cc
> > Subject
> > Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe the newer spring angle is doing something to the spring, lock-
> > pin,steering arm interface, I don't know. Obviously something has
> > changed, and the spring angle is the only thing different, so you're
> > doing what you have to do to change that. Because of the lack of a
> > bend-back angle to the spring, your tail must be sitting higher, and
> > this could lead to some differences in the plane's behavior.
> >
> > Lynn Matteson
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> > ==================================
>
>
> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> ===========================================================
Message 58
| 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 |
|
On Sun, January 18, 2009 9:14 pm, Lowell Fitt wrote:
> Not wanting to beat a dead horse, but maybe Maule needed the antishimmy
> springs because of the angle they recommended for the pivot axis.
>
> I made three drawings that illustrates the concept. The drawings are not
> to scale but give relative dimensions. Drawing one is the tailwheel in the
> Matteson configuration. Notice the distance between the pivot axis and the
> contact point - wheel to ground. In this illustration it is 1.54 inches.
> The second drawing shows the axis vertical, which I suspect would be ideal
> in an unreal world.
Ideal would be unloaded airplane in the middle drawing, right hand configuration
under
load.
> In this instance the distance between pivot axis and
> ground contact is 1.35 inches. The third illustration is in the Maule
> configuration and check the distance there. Now no one will ever convince
> me that the third configuration will be most resistant to shimmy or best
> tracking.
But it is the most resistant. Here's how to visualize that. For each condition
shown,
starting from the shown position of the caster wheel begin to rotate the wheel
about
the king pin axis and observer what that does to the tail position.
In the middle position axis vertical, no change in the tail height. In the left
drawing, rotation will cause the tail to lower slightly. In the right position
it will
raise the tail slightly. So in the left position the weight on the tail tends to
kick
the wheel out, the right position weight on the tail tends to push the wheel back
to
neutral.
Shimmy occurs when there are opposite and varying small forces. One force is from
the
friction force on the ground that tries to keep the wheel straight and the other
is
the down force of the tail. And in the left position, that down force is pushing
the
wheel out. A left right oscillation shimmy can occur as the wheel passes center
the
forces reverse.
Your drawing job is excellent. If you expand on it by showing what happens to the
height of the tail when you pivot the caster wheel from trailing center, you'll
see
that the tail goes down in the left case, stays the same in the middle case and
goes
up in the right case.
To visualize this easily, exaggerate the caster angle to 45. If you had it that
much
trailing, you probably would not be able to turn it away from center. and if you
had
it leading, it would probably always point to the side and would be difficult to
straighten.
The measurement of caster offset is along a line perpendicular to the king pin
axis
through the center of the tire rotational axis. Not along a line parallel to the
ground as you seem to be implying. The caster offset is fixed by the forging size!
The
8" Maule pneumatic wheel has a much bigger caster offset than that of the little
solid
tire, as it should for higher tail loads. The bigger the caster offset the greater
the
restoration torque will be from friction on the ground when the plane is not pointed
the same direction as the wheel is rolling.
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
Message 59
| 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 |
|
Jeez - I've never heard that one before...............................
I'll send you the torque settings tomorrow.
Gary
Gary Algate
SMC, Exploration
Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the addressees.
Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail in error, kindly notify us immediately by
telephone or e-mail and delete the message from your system. The sender
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of
this message which may arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
?This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we have
made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe and happy
Christmas".
Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
19/01/2009 04:43 PM
Please respond to
kitfox-list@matronics.com
To
kitfox-list@matronics.com
cc
Subject
Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
Please, just one more: "You can always tell an engineer....but you
can't tell him much."
What IS the torque setting?....I just do mine by hand until it feels
right....seat-of-the-pants engineering as it were (or shade-tree
mechanics, to be more to the point)
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:46 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
> Yes Lynn - in fact they actually gave me a toque setting for the
> bolt. I'm glad you reminded me though as I probably would have put
> the adaptor on and then tensioned it right up.
>
> And enough jokes about engineers - Ha
>
> Gary
>
> Gary Algate
> SMC, Exploration
> Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
>
>
> This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the
> addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this message by persons or entities other than the intended
> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the
> message from your system. The sender does not accept liability for
> any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may
> arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
> ?This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we
> have made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe
> and happy Christmas".
>
>
> Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> 19/01/2009 03:37 PM
> Please respond to
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
>
> To
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
> cc
> Subject
> Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
>
>
>
> One other thing to remember, Gary....I'm sure your new spring setup
> has one of the two main leaves with a larger hole on the tailwheel
> ass'y end, does it not? Make sure that you don't tighten that
> retaining bolt rock solid, but allow it a *tiny* bit of less-than
> tight torque, so that the springs can flex, and thus gain and lose
> comparative length....you know this as an engineer, right? (Not that
> I'm holding that against you) : )
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
> Sensenich 62x46
> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> New skis done and flying
> do not archive
>
>
> On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:05 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Gary Algate
> > SMC, Exploration
> > Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
> >
> >
> > This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the
> > addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> > this message by persons or entities other than the intended
> > recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> > kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the
> > message from your system. The sender does not accept liability for
> > any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may
> > arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
> > ?This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we
> > have made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe
> > and happy Christmas".
> >
> >
> > I can't disagree with your reasoning. If yours works then that's
> > all that matters.
> >
> > I have the adaptor in my hand and hope to get out to the plane this
> > evening to make the mods - I'll report back.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Gary
> > Classic 4 Jab 2200
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> > Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > 19/01/2009 02:57 PM
> > Please respond to
> > kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >
> > To
> > kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > cc
> > Subject
> > Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe the newer spring angle is doing something to the spring, lock-
> > pin,steering arm interface, I don't know. Obviously something has
> > changed, and the spring angle is the only thing different, so you're
> > doing what you have to do to change that. Because of the lack of a
> > bend-back angle to the spring, your tail must be sitting higher, and
> > this could lead to some differences in the plane's behavior.
> >
> > Lynn Matteson
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > www.matronics.com/contribution =5F-
> > =======================
===========
>
>
> www.matronics.com/contribution =5F-
> ========================
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - The Kitfox-List Email Forum -
=5F-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
=5F-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
=5F-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
=5F-= Photoshare, and much much more:
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
=5F-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - List Contribution Web Site -
=5F-= Thank you for your generous support!
=5F-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=5F-=======================
===========
Message 60
| 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 |
|
Well while you're contemplating your navel here some photos and details of
the adaptor bracket:
regards
Gary
Gary Algate
SMC, Exploration
Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the addressees.
Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail in error, kindly notify us immediately by
telephone or e-mail and delete the message from your system. The sender
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of
this message which may arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
?This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we have
made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe and happy
Christmas".
Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
19/01/2009 04:36 PM
Please respond to
kitfox-list@matronics.com
To
kitfox-list@matronics.com
cc
Subject
Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
That'll be a cold day in hell....wait a minute...it IS cold, and this
IS Hell, or close to it (there actually is a Hell, Michigan somewhat
nearby) so why not? Nahhh, the Sport Pilot thing again outlawing any
night flying...drat! Believe me, when I woke up at 2 am the other
day, and couldn't get back to sleep and I watched the thermometer
read 16.1 degrees F. below zero...then watched as it became warmer
and warmer, until it read about 3 above zero 4 hours later....yes,
you might say I have some spare time on my hands. : )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:30 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
> How could you possibly consider sleeping when something as
> "exciting" as this is going on. You need to get your night VFR
> endorsement so that you can make good use of all this "spare" time
> you have.
>
> Gary Algate
> SMC, Exploration
> Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
>
>
> This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the
> addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this message by persons or entities other than the intended
> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the
> message from your system. The sender does not accept liability for
> any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may
> arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
> ?This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we
> have made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe
> and happy Christmas".
>
>
> Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> 19/01/2009 03:24 PM
> Please respond to
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
>
> To
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
> cc
> Subject
> Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
>
>
>
> I'll be waiting...errrr...sleeping, but anticipating...: )
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
> Sensenich 62x46
> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> New skis done and flying
> do not archive
>
>
> On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:05 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Gary Algate
> > SMC, Exploration
> > Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
> >
> > I can't disagree with your reasoning. If yours works then that's
> > all that matters.
> >
> > I have the adaptor in my hand and hope to get out to the plane this
> > evening to make the mods - I'll report back.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Gary
> > Classic 4 Jab 2200
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> > Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > 19/01/2009 02:57 PM
> > Please respond to
> > kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >
> > To
> > kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > cc
> > Subject
> > Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe the newer spring angle is doing something to the spring, lock-
> > pin,steering arm interface, I don't know. Obviously something has
> > changed, and the spring angle is the only thing different, so you're
> > doing what you have to do to change that. Because of the lack of a
> > bend-back angle to the spring, your tail must be sitting higher, and
> > this could lead to some differences in the plane's behavior.
> >
> > Lynn Matteson
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > www.matronics.com/contribution =5F-
> > =======================
===========
>
>
> www.matronics.com/contribution =5F-
> ========================
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - The Kitfox-List Email Forum -
=5F-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
=5F-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
=5F-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
=5F-= Photoshare, and much much more:
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
=5F-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - List Contribution Web Site -
=5F-= Thank you for your generous support!
=5F-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=5F-=======================
===========
Message 61
| 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 |
|
You are dead right - it really should be a castellated nut - good idea
about the grease too
Gary Algate
SMC, Exploration
Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the addressees.
Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail in error, kindly notify us immediately by
telephone or e-mail and delete the message from your system. The sender
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of
this message which may arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
?This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we have
made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe and happy
Christmas".
Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
19/01/2009 04:58 PM
Please respond to
kitfox-list@matronics.com
To
kitfox-list@matronics.com
cc
Subject
Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
Yet another thought (as I lay in bed trying to forget this subject)
regarding the torqued bolt....why not use a castellated bolt, and
washers and cotter pin, perhaps drilling an additional cross-hole to
fine-tune the torque setting. I know mine gets loose and I have to
tighten it occasionally. And given the dictates of 43.13, which
stipulates (somewhere, I'm sure) that any bolt subject to movement
shall use a nut and cotter pin rather than a self-locking nut, or
words to that effect...doesn't it? This isn't the classic swiveling
bolt condition where the castle nut and cotter pin is required, but
it is similar.
I greased my leaves before I assembled the spring, for whatever
that's worth.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:46 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
> Yes Lynn - in fact they actually gave me a toque setting for the
> bolt. I'm glad you reminded me though as I probably would have put
> the adaptor on and then tensioned it right up.
>
> And enough jokes about engineers - Ha
>
> Gary
>
> Gary Algate
> SMC, Exploration
> Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
>
>
> This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the
> addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this message by persons or entities other than the intended
> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the
> message from your system. The sender does not accept liability for
> any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may
> arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
> ?This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we
> have made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe
> and happy Christmas".
>
>
> Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> 19/01/2009 03:37 PM
> Please respond to
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
>
> To
> kitfox-list@matronics.com
> cc
> Subject
> Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
>
>
>
> One other thing to remember, Gary....I'm sure your new spring setup
> has one of the two main leaves with a larger hole on the tailwheel
> ass'y end, does it not? Make sure that you don't tighten that
> retaining bolt rock solid, but allow it a *tiny* bit of less-than
> tight torque, so that the springs can flex, and thus gain and lose
> comparative length....you know this as an engineer, right? (Not that
> I'm holding that against you) : )
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
> Sensenich 62x46
> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> New skis done and flying
> do not archive
>
>
> On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:05 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Gary Algate
> > SMC, Exploration
> > Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
> >
> >
> > This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the
> > addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> > this message by persons or entities other than the intended
> > recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> > kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the
> > message from your system. The sender does not accept liability for
> > any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may
> > arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
> > ?This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we
> > have made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe
> > and happy Christmas".
> >
> >
> > I can't disagree with your reasoning. If yours works then that's
> > all that matters.
> >
> > I have the adaptor in my hand and hope to get out to the plane this
> > evening to make the mods - I'll report back.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Gary
> > Classic 4 Jab 2200
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> > Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > 19/01/2009 02:57 PM
> > Please respond to
> > kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >
> > To
> > kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > cc
> > Subject
> > Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe the newer spring angle is doing something to the spring, lock-
> > pin,steering arm interface, I don't know. Obviously something has
> > changed, and the spring angle is the only thing different, so you're
> > doing what you have to do to change that. Because of the lack of a
> > bend-back angle to the spring, your tail must be sitting higher, and
> > this could lead to some differences in the plane's behavior.
> >
> > Lynn Matteson
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > www.matronics.com/contribution =5F-
> > =======================
===========
>
>
> www.matronics.com/contribution =5F-
> ========================
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - The Kitfox-List Email Forum -
=5F-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
=5F-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
=5F-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
=5F-= Photoshare, and much much more:
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
=5F-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
=5F-
=5F-=======================
===========
=5F-= - List Contribution Web Site -
=5F-= Thank you for your generous support!
=5F-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=5F-=======================
===========
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|