Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:11 AM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Paul Franz - Merlin GT)
2. 04:24 AM - Re: Panel Wiring (Marwynne Kuhn)
3. 04:32 AM - Re: Panel Wiring (Marwynne Kuhn)
4. 04:48 AM - Re: Panel Wiring (Marwynne Kuhn)
5. 05:01 AM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (JC Propeller Design)
6. 05:20 AM - Re: Rotax 912 overvoltageRotax 912 overvoltage (Catz631@aol.com)
7. 05:34 AM - Re: VG's (Catz631@aol.com)
8. 05:48 AM - Re: Back on the list after 9 years! (Catz631@aol.com)
9. 06:00 AM - Re: Fuel Tank Expose (Catz631@aol.com)
10. 06:20 AM - Re: Fuel Tank Expose (fox5flyer)
11. 06:23 AM - Re: Greetings! New to the forum. (eskflyer)
12. 06:32 AM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Tom Jones)
13. 06:41 AM - Tailwheel to tricycle conversion (Paul Franz - Merlin GT)
14. 06:46 AM - Re: Another flying adventure (Noel Loveys)
15. 06:52 AM - resource collection/4130 welding (Paul Franz - Merlin GT)
16. 07:08 AM - Re: Ski Tuck (Noel Loveys)
17. 07:45 AM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Noel Loveys)
18. 07:50 AM - Re: Greetings! New to the forum. (Lowell Fitt)
19. 07:52 AM - Re: Greetings! New to the forum. (Cwehner)
20. 08:06 AM - Re: Panel Wiring (Noel Loveys)
21. 08:07 AM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Lowell Fitt)
22. 08:07 AM - Re: Re:Short Wing Pipers (Rueb, Duane)
23. 08:21 AM - Re: Fuel Tank Expose (Lowell Fitt)
24. 08:26 AM - Re: Panel Wiring (Noel Loveys)
25. 08:37 AM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Tom Jones)
26. 08:41 AM - Re: Panel Wiring (Noel Loveys)
27. 08:57 AM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (JC Propeller Design)
28. 08:59 AM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Noel Loveys)
29. 10:10 AM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Noel Loveys)
30. 10:10 AM - Re: VG's (Rich L)
31. 10:11 AM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Noel Loveys)
32. 11:00 AM - Re: Re: checking sparkchecking spark (Lynn Matteson)
33. 11:12 AM - Re: Panel Wiring (patrick reilly)
34. 11:12 AM - Re: Re: VG's (fox5flyer)
35. 11:27 AM - Re: Fuel Tank Expose (Lynn Matteson)
36. 11:27 AM - Re: Panel Wiring (Michael Gibbs)
37. 11:44 AM - Re: Ski Tuck (Lynn Matteson)
38. 11:44 AM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Noel Loveys)
39. 11:46 AM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Lynn Matteson)
40. 12:22 PM - Re: VG's (Rich L)
41. 12:57 PM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Lynn Matteson)
42. 01:00 PM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Lynn Matteson)
43. 01:53 PM - VG's (fox5flyer)
44. 02:09 PM - Re: Panel Wiring (patrick reilly)
45. 02:12 PM - Re: Re: checking sparkchecking spark (patrick reilly)
46. 02:33 PM - Re: Tailwheel to tricycle conversion (Cudnohufsky's)
47. 03:25 PM - Re: Tailwheel to tricycle conversion (Paul Franz - Merlin GT)
48. 04:18 PM - Re: Panel Wiring (Noel Loveys)
49. 04:21 PM - Re: Panel Wiring (Noel Loveys)
50. 04:22 PM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Noel Loveys)
51. 04:24 PM - Re: Ski Tuck (Noel Loveys)
52. 04:25 PM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Lowell Fitt)
53. 04:28 PM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Noel Loveys)
54. 04:31 PM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Francisco Drovetta)
55. 04:36 PM - Re: Back on the list after 9 years! (John Bonewitz)
56. 04:41 PM - Re: Re: checking sparkchecking spark (Lynn Matteson)
57. 04:49 PM - Re: VG's (akflyer)
58. 05:11 PM - Re: Re: checking sparkchecking spark (cde2fly@aol.com)
59. 05:23 PM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Francisco Drovetta)
60. 06:17 PM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Noel Loveys)
61. 07:12 PM - Re: Panel Wiring (Marwynne Kuhn)
62. 08:04 PM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Noel Loveys)
63. 08:10 PM - Re: Re: checking sparkchecking spark (patrick reilly)
64. 08:11 PM - Home of Kitfox (Clint Bazzill)
65. 10:16 PM - Re: Home of Kitfox (akflyer)
66. 11:20 PM - Re: Home of Kitfox (Paul Franz - Merlin GT)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
On Mon, January 26, 2009 10:01 pm, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>
> Well, Francisco, I wasn't too far off with the empty weight estimate, and it
> should fly fine based on your W&B numbers, but the tailwheel wt. should be
> much heavier. Since you have the spring gear, could you fabricate an
> extension that could be bolted to the gear at the axle attachment, extending
> the axle forward in increments until you get the 55 lbs. that you should
> have with that empty weight and that then would be your proper axle
> location.
That would be more difficult than just calculating the effect of moving it. Using
his
spreadsheet numbers for weights and moments I could easily do that if I only knew
the
weight of his main gear. That is the weight of the assembly that would be moved
forward.
My concerns are getting the proper allowable weight and balance envelope for his
particular airplane as moving the main gear forward will alter the CG. Ideally
it
should be moved forward as far as possible. The limits would be one of:
1) practical forward limit for attaching the gear to the structure
2) forward CG limit
3) maximum allowable tail wheel weight.
I think normal conventional design is a tail wheel weight of 5 to 10% of the gross
weight. This might be limited by the tail wheel spring(s) or the tail wheel itself.
But, I think it could be much higher than 55 lbs. Certainly it needs to be higher
than
the 15 lbs he shows now.
So, if you know the weight of the main gear assembly that would be moved or in
the
case of changing gear types, the weight of the old and the weight of the new, I
can
calculate new weights at the wheels for any new gear position. In fact, I could
do it
in spreadsheet fashion so you could just plug in the new moment arm and get the
results.
I guess one could do it for plugging in both the weight and the position. For me
it's
a matter of time available.
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel Wiring |
Pat you are correct the fuse should be in front of the switch.
Fuse sizing, should follow the advice from the manufacture of the
equipment. If the device is internally protected then the fuse should
be sized to protect the wire .
The wire should be sized at 120% of the device load. (Example 10 amp
device load should have a wire size no smaller the ability of the wire
to handle a 12 amp load.) I hope this helps. I am not an A/P or an I/A
but worked in the electrical field for many years.
See ya
Marwynne
----- Original Message -----
From: patrick reilly
To: kitfox matronics
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 10:48 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
Mike and Noel, OK, I got what you are telling me. But, that does not
answer my question.
+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
All the +'s on the left form a power buss. Mine is actually a wire
connecting 1 terminal of each switch. Next in the circuit is the fuse.
Mike, by your definition, shorting of the switch, which is not downline
of the fuse would not be protected by that circuits fuse. What would
happen if there was a dead short at a switch? I am guessing it would
blow a fuse up line, the fuse (not shown) that supplies power to the
three +'s. This would kill power to the 3 circuits shown. If the fuse
was hooked into the buss before the switch and there was a dead short at
the switch, you would only lose power to that circuit. Is this correct?
If this is correct, I will dismantel the panel and rewire it with fuse
hooked to power buss before the switch. I have never seen power to a
switch and then to a fuse. I didn't wire it this way The original
builder wired it. It flew around 200 hours like this and the original
builder did what I would call high quality work. I know that doesn't
mean he was electrically knowledgeable, and I don't know what fuse would
blow if there was a dead short at one of the switches. I know there are
going to be alot of opinions out there, but who out there knows for sure
what will happen in this circuit.
Pat Reilly
Mod 3 582 Rebuild
Rockford, IL
> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:04:37 -0700
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> From: MichaelGibbs@cox.net
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
>
<MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Noel sez:
>
> >It is recommended that each of the circuit breakers or individual
> >fuses be attached directly to the power buss as they only protect
> >what is down circuit of them. From these breakers or fuses your
> >load is established.
>
> There's nothing wrong with attaching the breakers or fuses directly
> to the power buss, that's what I've always done, but a circuit
> breaker or fuse protects the device on the circuit it is in line
> with--it has no idea what is "up circuit" or "down circuit." When
> the current flow exceeds the threshold value, it opens the circuit,
> preventing any power flow.
>
> This:
>
> (+)-----[device]-----[breaker]-----(-)
>
> is equivalent to:
>
> (+)-----[breaker]-----[device]-----(-)
>
> When the breaker pops, they remain equivalent with no complete
> circuit, hence no current flow:
>
> (+)-----[device]-----
>
> or:
>
> -----[device]-----(-)
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster
> Phoenix, AZ
&g=====================
>===========
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel Wiring |
Mike , I disagree with part of your response.
The protective device should be as close to the buss form maximum protection
of the whole circuit. The protect device in this case protects everything
that is down stream of the protective device. The fuse will fail when the
current flow that was selected no matter if the switch fails to ground , the
wire fails to ground or the device you are feeding fails to ground. Fails
to ground means a short circuits from positive to negative. The protective
device should be sized for the wire opacity.
Marwynne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gibbs" <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 9:04 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
>
> Noel sez:
>
>>It is recommended that each of the circuit breakers or individual fuses be
>>attached directly to the power buss as they only protect what is down
>>circuit of them. From these breakers or fuses your load is established.
>
> There's nothing wrong with attaching the breakers or fuses directly to the
> power buss, that's what I've always done, but a circuit breaker or fuse
> protects the device on the circuit it is in line with--it has no idea what
> is "up circuit" or "down circuit." When the current flow exceeds the
> threshold value, it opens the circuit, preventing any power flow.
>
> This:
>
> (+)-----[device]-----[breaker]-----(-)
>
> is equivalent to:
>
> (+)-----[breaker]-----[device]-----(-)
>
> When the breaker pops, they remain equivalent with no complete circuit,
> hence no current flow:
>
> (+)-----[device]-----
>
> or:
>
> -----[device]-----(-)
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster
> Phoenix, AZ
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel Wiring |
Please for give the "wire opacity" ..... hahahah spell checker and computer
driver .....hahahah "wire ampacity".
sorry about that
Marwynne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marwynne Kuhn" <marwynne@verizon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 6:30 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
>
> Mike , I disagree with part of your response.
>
> The protective device should be as close to the buss form maximum
> protection of the whole circuit. The protect device in this case protects
> everything that is down stream of the protective device. The fuse will
> fail when the current flow that was selected no matter if the switch fails
> to ground , the wire fails to ground or the device you are feeding fails
> to ground. Fails to ground means a short circuits from positive to
> negative. The protective device should be sized for the wire opacity.
>
> Marwynne
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Gibbs" <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 9:04 PM
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
>
>
>>
>> Noel sez:
>>
>>>It is recommended that each of the circuit breakers or individual fuses
>>>be attached directly to the power buss as they only protect what is down
>>>circuit of them. From these breakers or fuses your load is established.
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with attaching the breakers or fuses directly to
>> the power buss, that's what I've always done, but a circuit breaker or
>> fuse protects the device on the circuit it is in line with--it has no
>> idea what is "up circuit" or "down circuit." When the current flow
>> exceeds the threshold value, it opens the circuit, preventing any power
>> flow.
>>
>> This:
>>
>> (+)-----[device]-----[breaker]-----(-)
>>
>> is equivalent to:
>>
>> (+)-----[breaker]-----[device]-----(-)
>>
>> When the breaker pops, they remain equivalent with no complete circuit,
>> hence no current flow:
>>
>> (+)-----[device]-----
>>
>> or:
>>
>> -----[device]-----(-)
>>
>> Mike G.
>> N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster
>> Phoenix, AZ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
Moving the gear a few inch forward will not move the CG much, it will add
weight to the tail.
most taildragger have the main gear close to the leading edge of mean
aerodynamic chord, just a few inch behind.
the main wheel should be so placed that a line from wheel axle to CG is
15-25deg with tail up, meaning we need to know not just the cg in length but
also height position.
Jan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Franz - Merlin GT" <paul@eucleides.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
> <paul@eucleides.com>
>
> On Mon, January 26, 2009 10:01 pm, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>>
>> Well, Francisco, I wasn't too far off with the empty weight estimate, and
>> it
>> should fly fine based on your W&B numbers, but the tailwheel wt. should
>> be
>> much heavier. Since you have the spring gear, could you fabricate an
>> extension that could be bolted to the gear at the axle attachment,
>> extending
>> the axle forward in increments until you get the 55 lbs. that you should
>> have with that empty weight and that then would be your proper axle
>> location.
>
> That would be more difficult than just calculating the effect of moving
> it. Using his
> spreadsheet numbers for weights and moments I could easily do that if I
> only knew the
> weight of his main gear. That is the weight of the assembly that would be
> moved
> forward.
>
> My concerns are getting the proper allowable weight and balance envelope
> for his
> particular airplane as moving the main gear forward will alter the CG.
> Ideally it
> should be moved forward as far as possible. The limits would be one of:
>
> 1) practical forward limit for attaching the gear to the structure
> 2) forward CG limit
> 3) maximum allowable tail wheel weight.
>
> I think normal conventional design is a tail wheel weight of 5 to 10% of
> the gross
> weight. This might be limited by the tail wheel spring(s) or the tail
> wheel itself.
> But, I think it could be much higher than 55 lbs. Certainly it needs to be
> higher than
> the 15 lbs he shows now.
>
> So, if you know the weight of the main gear assembly that would be moved
> or in the
> case of changing gear types, the weight of the old and the weight of the
> new, I can
> calculate new weights at the wheels for any new gear position. In fact, I
> could do it
> in spreadsheet fashion so you could just plug in the new moment arm and
> get the
> results.
>
> I guess one could do it for plugging in both the weight and the position.
> For me it's
> a matter of time available.
>
> --
> Paul A. Franz
> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
> Bellevue WA
> 425.241.1618 Cell
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3803 (20090127) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912 overvoltageRotax 912 overvoltage |
Noel and the rest of you thanks for your replies. I took the rectifier off
yesterday and checked the connections. I did find some slight corrosion so I
cleaned it with contact cleaner and reinstalled the unit.It now appears to be
working correctly . My traffic alerter is working too because as I had my eyes
inside the aircraft checking the voltage from 3 sources (alerter,Westach volt
gauge and GPS) I received a "Trafic,Traffic,Traffic" warning and there 200ft
above me and at less than1/2 mile was a T-34C that flew into the picture.That was
a good test of that unit I just installed!
Dick Maddux
Fox 4-1200
Pensacola,Fl
**************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay
up-to-date with the latest news. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023)
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 |
|
Lynn,
Each set of two VG's is about 6 inches apart or so about 5 1/2 inches back
from the leading edge on the top of the wing and the one's on the stab are on
the bottom about 2 inches in front of the hinge.
I flew again yesterday and I do like them. As I said before, it does make
the aircraft more stable at lower speeds. I can definitely feel it.
One of these days I will go up and do a stall series to see if there are
any differences in stall speed which at one test, didn't seem to be. I need to
reset the warning airspeed on my TrueTrak anyway.
Dick Maddux
Fox 4-1200
Pensacola,Fl
**************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay
up-to-date with the latest news. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023)
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Back on the list after 9 years! |
John,
Welcome to the list!!
I have a Fox 4 that also likes to wheel land and is somewhat of a chore to 3
point. The cg is in range and I also have a BRS chute in a canister behind
the pax seat.(thats almost 30 lbs) I too have the gap seals on the elevator and
VG's under the rear stab. It seems to make very little difference (although
the gap seals did help a little)
By the way,I just had my BRS repacked. It cost me $695 and that is the half
price special which BRS offers in the winter. If interested call Derrick at
BRS. The chute pack is good for 6 years and the rocket 12 years.
I have a friend at my field who told me that he and a buddy fired off a BRS
chute and it was almost 17 years old. He said it worked fine. They did it on
the ground. I don't know if this is true or not as he tends to exaggerate and
in any case I would not want to wait that long!
Dick Maddux
Kitfox 4-1200
Pensacola,Fl
**************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay
up-to-date with the latest news. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023)
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Tank Expose |
Thanks Andy ! I look forward to the pictures as I too have the white sealent
possibly flaking in my tanks (borescope). I am keeping a cutious watch on my
wing tank filters. If I see small flakes or blockage,then I will have to go
through the task of pulling the wings and removing the tanks.
Dick Maddux
Pensacola,Fl
**************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay
up-to-date with the latest news. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023)
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: Fuel Tank Expose |
Dick, there have been some cases here on the list where the tanks were
cleaned and resloshed without removing them from the wings. Several
people got together and after removing the wings from the airplane, were
able to do the job just by rotating the wings. I'm sure it's a big
chore, but not nearly as much as completely removing the tanks.
Hopefully someone who was involved will pop up to give the details.
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: Catz631@aol.com
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Tank Expose
Thanks Andy ! I look forward to the pictures as I too have the white
sealent possibly flaking in my tanks (borescope). I am keeping a cutious
watch on my wing tank filters. If I see small flakes or blockage,then I
will have to go through the task of pulling the wings and removing the
tanks.
Dick Maddux
Pensacola,Fl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay
up-to-date with the latest news.
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Greetings! New to the forum. |
Welcome
Darn the plane looks the same as it did when i left OK 2 years ago lol. I hope
you all get her in the air soon. I talked to your dad just the other day and
he said you guys got a pretty good deal there with all the help and the hanger
. Send more pics . Heck with all the help it should be in the air in weeks .
3579erA
--------
FLY FUN FLY LOW FLY SLOW
John Perry
Kitfox 2 N718PD
582 cbox 2:62-1 IVO IFA
1220 Full Lotus
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=227063#227063
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: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
> Attached is excel file W&B of my aircraft info.
>
> Tks
Francisco, the primary issue I see in your weight and balance sheet is that the
axle centerline is only 1.7 inches forward of the forward CG limit...assuming
one degree forward wing sweep.
The 'Most adverse forward" on your sheet should be labeled 'Most adverse aft".
Doing some quick and dirty math with the 154 pound pilot, 30 pounds fuel and
no baggage, I calculate a "Most adverse forward" CG of 12.0 inches and gross weight
1069 for your plane. With these numbers the axle is still only 3.74 inches
forward of the CG.
To compare, my Classic 4 axle center line is 2.5 inches behind the datum and the
forward CG limit is 10.2 inches. Axel is 7.7 inches forward of forward CG limit.
My actual calculated most adverse forward CG is 12.3 inches at a gross weight of
796 pounds. The axle is 9.8 inches forward of CG.
Your plane will also have more inertia due to the heavier gross weight. Just a
little too much brakes or a gust of a tail wind and your beautiful plane will
be on its back.
I would not taxi until this condition is resolved.
--------
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=227065#227065
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Tailwheel to tricycle conversion |
Here's a really nice looking KF Series 7:
<http://www.kitfoxaircraft.com/images/Recent%20Completions/BHoisington.htm>
I wonder which way the conversion was done? Started out as Tricycle gear or conventional?
Maybe Bruce learned to fly in it as a tricycle gear then transitioned to tail dragger
or maybe he too needed to move the main gear forward and decided to instead, convert
to tricycle.
Anybody know the story on this?
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
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: | Another flying adventure |
Lynn:
I agree the first step would be to check the existing tension. I was just
thinking about a way of doing it without lifting the plane and playing with
blocks... :-)
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another flying adventure
In my case there is enough preload to make it difficult to attach the
cords....way more than the suggested (by the other article) 2" of
preload, because as you mentioned, the tail is on the ground. Your
weight method should work, but I'm going to use a spring scale to get
the weight needed, by marking the cord at "x" and "y" (a guessed-at
distance apart) then seeing what length this distance becomes when
stretched to the 20-40 lbs suggested for a 1500-3000 lb rating ski.
Probably before I do this, I would check the existing tension at the
stretched length of the check cable. This would be the starting
point, and the point at where the ski would be in the flying
attitude. This would be the weakest tension on the cord, and it would
only get stronger from there. I'll get a pretty good idea of how much
to shorten the cords by using this method, as I can use the spring
tension scale to stretch the cord beyond the mounting point, and
thereby observe how much needs to be cut off and the terminal
reattached.
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 26, 2009, at 7:19 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> There may be a way of doing it mathematically. The cord as you
> know is
> designed to stretch 1:1.6. you know what the length of the
> extended chord
> will be. ( the distance from the end of the crust cutter to the top
> attachment point) Using a little trig you can calculate the weight
> you will
> need to stretch the cord (Slightly over 30 - 40 lb) the specific
> length.
> Make one loop in the chord and simply lift the weight off the floor
> using a
> single pulley suspended the distance of the stretched installation
> plus the
> thickness of your weights off the floor. Mark the chord with a
> soap and
> make your second loop. All you would have to do then is make two
> chords the
> same. Don't be surprised if there is a bit of pre load on the cords
> especially when the tail is on the ground.
>
> I think a big part of the installation would be the angle "B" on
> the front
> (AC43) If that angle gets too small then the chances of going over
> centre
> get greater and at best the forces during a tuck are increased as
> that angle
> decreases. At full extension of the check cable the force required
> to lift
> the ski is the greatest when it is attached at the root of the
> landing gear
> as in AC43. I've seen lots of 180s that had the bungees attached
> further
> forward. Now I think I see why.
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn
> Matteson
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 5:50 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another flying adventure
>
>
> I haven't had to ride over moguls yet, but I'm sure there are folks
> who have and I'll bet that's where the "down travel" comes into play.
>
> That's the problem that I've had on both sets of skis that I've
> built....how to get the plane high enough off the ground so that I
> can press down on the tip and record a pressure number. During
> rigging of the check (rear) cables, I raised the tail of the plane to
> zero degrees...straight and level "flight"...then I raised the tip of
> the ski to less than 5 degrees positive, and made the check cables
> such a length that they would be tight at this attitude. I then
> measured from the fuselage mount point of the upper end of the shock
> cord to the lower mounting point, subtracted 2" (a figure I found in
> yet another article), and made my shock cords this length,
> calculating in the length of the terminal/fasteners. You will note
> that the rigging article says "Because of the various angles used in
> attaching.....shock cord tension cannot be specified."
>
> What I'll do next is to jack up the plane, place a main wheel onto a
> block of wood, such that the cord will pull the check cable tight,
> then measure the pressure required to push down on the tip of the
> ski. I'll use this figure as the "not enough pressure unless you want
> another exciting ride" pressure, and shorten up the cord to set this
> to a higher pressure requirement...such as shorten the cord by at
> least 1" and see how that changes the pressure reading. And of
> course, the further down you push, the more the tension will
> increase, so you don't want them too tight at first.
>
> 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 26, 2009, at 1:45 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
>> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>>
>> Thanks lynn:
>>
>> I just looked it up and yes sir I'm surprised how far the points of
>> the skis
>> can go down.
>>
>> Now I'm trying to think of a way to lift a ski and be able to press
>> down on
>> the tip to see how much weight it requires to slack the check
>> cable. AC 43
>> says 20-40lb for our weight planes.
>> Thanks
>>
>> 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 25, 2009 5:42 PM
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another flying adventure
>>
>>
>> The ski info is all in AC 43.13-2A, which seems to be an addition to
>> 43.13-1B combined with change 1. The actual page numbers for the ski
>> installation are pages 33-41. This is according to my copy which is
>> dated 9/8/98. The skis stuff shows "Rev 1977" If you have the actual
>> book, it's way in the back...if you're going online to view it, I
>> have no idea except to look for "-2A". As usual, FAA thinking went
>> into this, and I can't make sense out of their numbering system.
>>
>> 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 25, 2009, at 1:12 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>>
>>> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>>>
>>> Lynn:
>>>
>>> What page in AC43 did you find the spec for the skis?
>>>
>>> I've been looking and found nothing on installation.
>>>
>>> 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 25, 2009 10:26 AM
>>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another flying adventure
>>>
>>>
>>> Tight at sitting on the ground with tailwheel down? That seems like
>>> it would not allow for going over terrain dips, etc. The shock cords
>>> should hold the positive of 0 degrees to 5 degrees. I'm gonna
>>> have to
>>> think about your suggestion over coffee this morning, Gary, but if
>>> 43.13 allows up to negative 35, I gotta wonder why. Maybe some
>>> northern resident who lives on skis could answer.
>>> One solution is to always carry a big stick....and don't speak
>>> softly
>>> to those %#$@*&_+ skis when/if they do it again!
>>>
>>> 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 25, 2009, at 2:51 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>>>
>>>> when I had my skis I sent the front restraint cable so that it was
>>>> starting to tighten when the plain was in the standard 3 point
>>>> position.
>>>>
>>>> there was no way I could get a negative angle on my skis in
>>>> flight!
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> 25/01/2009 12:16 PM
>>>> Please respond to
>>>> kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>>
>>>> To
>>>> kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>> cc
>>>> Subject
>>>> Re: Kitfox-List: Another flying adventure
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> AC 43.13 shows -20 to -35 degree angles for main ski incidence,
>>>> and a
>>>> couple of years ago, when this was a current topic, somebody...a
>>>> few,
>>>> actually...said that 25 was plenty, so I set mine at that figure.
>>>> This is the first time I've ever had this happen, and it got my
>>>> attention. What caused it I don't know, but I'll be asking advice
>>>> from other ski users locally. 43.13 also specs the down force
>>>> required to slacken the check cable, and for this size ski it is
>>>> 20-40 pounds of force. Maybe I need to set mine a bit higher
>>>> because
>>>> of my 15" wide fronts, and narrower...6-1/2" wide rears. Because
>>>> they
>>>> are dissimilar in area, maybe the air got hold of the front area
>>>> and
>>>> blew it down, and the smaller rear area could not balance it out. I
>>>> never had this happen on the other skis, and I have exactly the
>>>> same
>>>> cable and shock cord setup....1/8" stainless steel cables and 3/8"
>>>> shock cords. The shock cords have 2" of pre-stretch when they are
>>>> installed at the maximum positive incidence angle of +5 degrees.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 24, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>>>>>
>>>>> 25 Degrees down sounds pretty steep to me. What are the other
>>>>> guys
>>>>> using?
>>>>>
>>>>> Noel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> www.matronics.com/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: | resource collection/4130 welding |
On the list we've discussed fuel flow devices. I did a little research and happened
to
discover that Matt Dralle makes and sells them - the business end of Matronics.
<http://www.matronics.com/fuelchec/index.htm>
It's quite a bit pricier but has the option of working with a return flow meter
as
you'd have with fuel injection or for that matter, any Diesel powered vehicle.
I found that on this big list of resources.
<http://www.ultralightmarket.com/results.asp?view=Land&Land=40>
Lot's of good links there for stuff to buy but also references to publications
like
the AIM and Part 61.
At the top of the list (alphabetical) was a link that caught my eye and that is
for
working with 4130 aircraft tubing. They have DVD which according to the long list
of
testimonials is pretty good.
<http://www.jumprunenterprises.com/>
Has anyone here seen this DVD?
He also sells some cool useful tools which could save someone some money.
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
The tag isn't worth its weight in gold on any amateur built but you put
local hardware store stuff on a Super Cub and you may find out how valuable
a little yellow tag can be. In the meantime it's that little tag that
allows any aircraft supplier to charge more for it. So in a way it still
worth gold ... just not yours or mine.
Relaxing the tension on the chords will certainly help keep their tension
especially in cold weather. As for getting five years. It's more than
possible if they are taken care of as you mentioned, dark cool storage
space. I had my boat moored in my boathouse with bungee cord. It keeps the
boat centred in the house with the tides going up and down. After a couple
of years they need to be replaced at the first sign of wear! It is amazing
how fast they will disintegrate once wear starts to show.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ski Tuck
Both Spruce and Wicks Aircraft Supply cite Mil-Spec numbers for their
shock cord...Spruce says theirs is pre-stretched "for an ultimate
elongation of 120-140%"
How is the tag worth it's weight in gold.....on an experimental pair
of skis on an experimental airplane?
I have even begun to follow FAA's suggestion to relax the cords when
parked overnight or longer....which is most of the time. I would
surmise that if it is common practice to change landing gear bungees
every two years, we may well get 5 years out of ski shock cords,
especially if relaxed as suggested....and kept out of sunlight for
most of their life.
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 26, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> Lynn:
>
> That's because it isn't certified shock cord. If you get your cord
> from
> Aviall expect to pay a lot more for it but it will come with a tag
> used to
> certify the plane. Are the cords from Aviall any better? No, but
> the tag
> is worth its weight in gold. A rule of thumb is to replace all
> chords every
> five years. On our small planes we may get twice that life out of
> them.
> Like everything else check them over in the fall when you install
> your skis.
> Most chord will extend .61 % (from 1 ft. to 1.61 ft) so for the
> skis I
> would have the stretched length around 1.5 times the length at
> rest. That
> will give close to maximum lift on the chord without pulling it too
> much.
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn
> Matteson
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 5:09 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ski Tuck
>
>
> It was new rubber about 2 weeks ago, fresh from Aircraft Spruce, and
> it is white rubber. I think I just didn't put enough tension on them
> when I cut them to length. I'm going to shorten them by about an inch
> or maybe 1-1/2". And of course with building skis, you just order 16
> feet of the stuff, and hope for the best and freshest batch. One of
> my Tony Bingelis books shows a chart of the thread colors used in the
> covering of the shock cords, which would allow you to check the
> manufacturing date of the cords, but none of the cords that I've
> ordered over the years from Spruce has matched the chart...ever.
>
> 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
>
>
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: | KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
Lowell:
I just ran a couple of calculations and I think he needs to move his main
wheels ahead to position 3.21 in. aft of datum to provide 45Lb. on the tail
wheel at empty weight.
I think all aboard will agree 15 lb is way too small a weight on the tail
wheel for a close to 900 lb. plane. In the mean time he should keep his
feet off the brake pedals.
Just for the fun of it my calculations started with
45lb on the tail @151.8in. = 6831 an increase in moment at the tail of
4486. This moment to be subtracted from the total of the main moments.
(3610.28+3573.85)-4486=2698.13
I then subtracted the 29.55 lb added to the tail from the total of the front
wheels. (437.08+432.67)-29.55=837.2
Finally 2698.13/837.2= 3.22 that is just about a full five inches forward
from where it is now.
Truth is because the landing gear itself has weight it will probably put
slightly less than 45lb. on the tail wheel.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Francisco
Drovetta
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
Mr. Lowell Fitt
Mr. Paul Franz
Mr. Guy Buchanan
Tks a lot for useful information.
Attached is excel file W&B of my aircraft info.
Tks
FD
www.dcubj3.com.br
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
> I suspect that what Francisco actually needs is the location of the axle
> relative to the CG. I think the easy way to approximate this is by
> tailwheel weight vs. empty weight. My first Kitfox had a tailwheel wt of
> 44
> lbs. vs an empty wt of 704 lbs. - yes a heavy. This gives 6.25% on the
> tailwheel. From what I see in the pictures on Francisco's website, I
> suspect his emtpy weight in the 850 lb range giving a tailwheel weight in
> the range of 53 lbs. This in level attitude.
>
> Lowell
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Franz - Merlin GT" <paul@eucleides.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 5:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
>
>> <paul@eucleides.com>
>>
>> On Sun, January 25, 2009 4:30 pm, Francisco Drovetta wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>> Someone knows which is the distance from DATUM line to "center of wheel"
>>> in Kitfox
>>> Model IV ??
>>
>> For ease and safety in landing, the gear should be set as far forward as
>> practicable.
>>
>> The limit is usually dictated by the fuselage structure, that is, you can
>> only mount
>> it to the forward limit of the fuselage. But in your case with what looks
>> like a
>> forward mounted and heavy engine, weight and balance might be the
>> limiting
>> factor.
>>
>> If you can supply the moment arms and weights of your existing setup, I
>> can calculate
>> what happens when you move the gear.
>>
>> I would need:
>>
>> moment arm and weight of the main gear
>> moment arm and scale weight of tail wheel
>> moment arm and weight on main gear (empty, no fuel or oil) at tire
>> contact
>> point
>> moment arm for oil in crankcase
>> moment arm for fuel in tanks.
>> moment arm for occupants
>> moment arm for baggage
>>
>> If the existing gear is not going to be used then I need the weight of
>> the
>> proposed
>> gear and location of it's c.g. relative to the fore and aft mounting
>> positions.
>>
>>>
>>> See jpg attached of Highlander (www.justkitplanes.com)
>>> I need the same image of Kitfox IV, to find answer to my question.
>>>
>>> Can you help me?
>>>
>>> Tks
>>> FD
>>> www.dcubj3.com.br
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paul A. Franz
>> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
>> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
>> Bellevue WA
>> 425.241.1618 Cell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
18:37
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: Greetings! New to the forum. |
Hi Chris,
I remember the name from the old days. Welcome back.
Lowell Fitt
Cameron Park, CA
Model IV-1200 R-912 UL
Just about ready to cover fuselage and left wing. Still finding things to
do.
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cwehner" <1cewehner@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 9:58 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Greetings! New to the forum.
>
> Hello all,
> I wanted to to take a minute to introduce myself and thank you all (in
> advance) for all the help I'm going to receive from you in the coming
> future.
> I reside in Tulsa and and received my pilot training from Spartan flight
> school (here in Tulsa) in the early 90's. My father started building a
> Kitfox IV in the 90's and with life getting in the way hasn't had much
> time to work on it. He has recently decided to move the plane from his
> home in southwest Oklahoma, up here to Tulsa so we can Team-up and make a
> final push to complete it.
> Over the last few weeks I have been cramming my brain with as much Kitfox
> info as I can handle. This Forum has already answered many of my questions
> without even having to ask them. My father has always spoke highly of the
> help here and I can see why.
>
> Sincerely,
> Chris
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=227025#227025
>
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Greetings! New to the forum. |
LOL, hey John.... I do believe the plane is at the same stage of "done-ness" as
when you left. Well... the wings aren't folded back anymore, Baby steps I guess.
I figured you and Dad would have finished it up before you moved away.
I sorta lucked into a Hangar at Riverside that is owned by a taildragger CFI
and surrounded by a bunch of retired A&P's.... meant to be I guess.
We'll talk soon!
--------
Chris
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Kitfox IV, 912, lots a mod's, 80% complete
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=227088#227088
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 |
|
No not at all. The correct way is:
(+Buss)[breaker]---wire---[device](-)
Or in the case of a ground wire required;
(+ Buss)[Breaker]----wire----[Device]---wire--- (-)
This is because in this setup the breaker not only protects the device but
it also protects the wire going to the device. In the above drawing that
wire is also protected by the breaker.
With your first set up neither the wire feeding the device or the device
itself is protected by the breaker. Any short between the buss and the
breaker will not allow you to turn off the device by pulling the breaker. A
short in the wire feeding the device could cause a fire in the panel with no
way of cutting power to it. That is why it is recommended that the breaker
be wired as close to the buss as possible. Most panels actually have the
breakers wired directly to the buss.
If however you are running a positive ground in your plane your first
diagram would be right.
Don't think about doing that :-)
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Gibbs
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 11:35 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
Noel sez:
>It is recommended that each of the circuit breakers or individual
>fuses be attached directly to the power buss as they only protect
>what is down circuit of them. From these breakers or fuses your
>load is established.
There's nothing wrong with attaching the breakers or fuses directly
to the power buss, that's what I've always done, but a circuit
breaker or fuse protects the device on the circuit it is in line
with--it has no idea what is "up circuit" or "down circuit." When
the current flow exceeds the threshold value, it opens the circuit,
preventing any power flow.
This:
(+)-----[device]-----[breaker]-----(-)
is equivalent to:
(+)-----[breaker]-----[device]-----(-)
When the breaker pops, they remain equivalent with no complete
circuit, hence no current flow:
(+)-----[device]-----
or:
-----[device]-----(-)
Mike G.
N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster
Phoenix, AZ
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
Paul,
That is the problem I find with math. The typical weight if the Grove gear
including fasteners and axle is 30 lbs and that was on personal inquiry from
Grove. In my head you would be moving a 30 lb. wt. forward about 10 inches
or so by my guess - no math, just looking at my uncovered fuselage and where
his gear is and where mine is.
Regarding the 55 lbs. That was calculated based on my tailwheel wt. vs.
gross wt. and my airplane flew fine with full three point elevator
authority. Lynn Matteson said his tailwheel wt was in the 55 lbs. range as
well and that was at 6.25%. Maybe it is time for another survey :-).
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Franz - Merlin GT" <paul@eucleides.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:10 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
> <paul@eucleides.com>
>
> On Mon, January 26, 2009 10:01 pm, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>>
>> Well, Francisco, I wasn't too far off with the empty weight estimate, and
>> it
>> should fly fine based on your W&B numbers, but the tailwheel wt. should
>> be
>> much heavier. Since you have the spring gear, could you fabricate an
>> extension that could be bolted to the gear at the axle attachment,
>> extending
>> the axle forward in increments until you get the 55 lbs. that you should
>> have with that empty weight and that then would be your proper axle
>> location.
>
> That would be more difficult than just calculating the effect of moving
> it. Using his
> spreadsheet numbers for weights and moments I could easily do that if I
> only knew the
> weight of his main gear. That is the weight of the assembly that would be
> moved
> forward.
>
> My concerns are getting the proper allowable weight and balance envelope
> for his
> particular airplane as moving the main gear forward will alter the CG.
> Ideally it
> should be moved forward as far as possible. The limits would be one of:
>
> 1) practical forward limit for attaching the gear to the structure
> 2) forward CG limit
> 3) maximum allowable tail wheel weight.
>
> I think normal conventional design is a tail wheel weight of 5 to 10% of
> the gross
> weight. This might be limited by the tail wheel spring(s) or the tail
> wheel itself.
> But, I think it could be much higher than 55 lbs. Certainly it needs to be
> higher than
> the 15 lbs he shows now.
>
> So, if you know the weight of the main gear assembly that would be moved
> or in the
> case of changing gear types, the weight of the old and the weight of the
> new, I can
> calculate new weights at the wheels for any new gear position. In fact, I
> could do it
> in spreadsheet fashion so you could just plug in the new moment arm and
> get the
> results.
>
> I guess one could do it for plugging in both the weight and the position.
> For me it's
> a matter of time available.
>
> --
> Paul A. Franz
> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
> Bellevue WA
> 425.241.1618 Cell
>
>
>
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:Short Wing Pipers |
My first solo was in a Piper Colt off of a grass strip. I later purchased
a Tri-Pacer which I owned for 15 years. I share your opinion of those craf
t, and have a lot of respect for them. The Tri-Pacer that I had was a 1957
with 150 hp, and would cruise @ 135 mph carrying more than a 172 at a high
er speed.
These airplanes are tough and good, and are generally under rated for sure.
In fact the Tri-Pacer out performed Piper's immediate replacement model,
the Cherokee 140. Mine had the 8 gallon aux tank, and I once flew it nonst
op from Phoenix Field, near Sacramento California to Redmond Oregon. I no
w can hardly believe that I did this without noise cancelling headset, in f
act without headset at all!
Duane Rueb, N24ZM
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-serv
er@matronics.com] On Behalf Of EMAproducts@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 8:58 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: re:Short Wing Pipers
Short wing Pipers death traps??
I think all should fly a few hundred in aircraft before they bad mouth them
. I flew the Colt (2 place Tri-Pacer no flaps) for 600 hours when I starte
d instructing, along with T-Crafts Tri-Pacers and all of the other typical
aircraft of the day 1962. The majority of the Piper PA-20's (Pacer) are c
onverted to PA-22 (Tri Pacer) I have a parts manual and it is a PA 20-22 p
arts manual, the ONLY difference is the gear location. I still say the Tri
-Pacer is one of the most under estimated aircraft around and one of the be
tter buys, they might not look sexy but they will do what is asked of them.
Good plane! $ for $ it will haul more faster with less maintenance than
nearly any airplane made.
Elbie 25,000 hours still instructing EAA 38308
EM Aviation, LLC www.riteangle.com<http://www.riteangle.com>
________________________________
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!<http:/
/pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://
www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=
DecemailfooterNO62>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Tank Expose |
I resloshed one tank with the help of a fixture I made and a friend. It is
doable and with proper covering of the painted surfaces doesn't leave a mess
except possibly on the floor. For what it;s worth, I have a lot of
confidence in Kreem. I have done some test tube tests - in the archives.
Lowell Fitt
Cameron Park, CA
Model IV-1200 R-912 UL
Just about ready to cover fuselage and left wing. And Rudder
----- Original Message -----
From: "fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@idealwifi.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Tank Expose
Dick, there have been some cases here on the list where the tanks were
cleaned and resloshed without removing them from the wings. Several people
got together and after removing the wings from the airplane, were able to do
the job just by rotating the wings. I'm sure it's a big chore, but not
nearly as much as completely removing the tanks. Hopefully someone who was
involved will pop up to give the details.
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: Catz631@aol.com
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Tank Expose
Thanks Andy ! I look forward to the pictures as I too have the white
sealent possibly flaking in my tanks (borescope). I am keeping a cutious
watch on my wing tank filters. If I see small flakes or blockage,then I will
have to go through the task of pulling the wings and removing the tanks.
Dick Maddux
Pensacola,Fl
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay up-to-date
with the latest news.
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 |
|
In this diagram you device is protected but what protects the switch and the
wire from the Buss?
I'd try:
<<Upstream-----------Downstream>>
+ (fuse)---(switch)---- (Device)---- (-)
+ (fuse)---(switch)---- (Device)---- (-)
+ (fuse)---(switch)---- (Device)---- (-)
+ (fuse)---(switch)---- (Device)---- (-)
Fuse as close to Buss as physically possible.
That way the whole circuit is protected from a short circuit by the fuse.
Noel
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of patrick reilly
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:19 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
Mike and Noel, OK, I got what you are telling me. But, that does not answer
my question.
+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
All the +'s on the left form a power buss. Mine is actually a wire
connecting 1 terminal of each switch. Next in the circuit is the fuse. Mike,
by your definition, shorting of the switch, which is not downline of the
fuse would not be protected by that circuits fuse. What would happen if
there was a dead short at a switch? I am guessing it would blow a fuse up
line, the fuse (not shown) that supplies power to the three +'s. This would
kill power to the 3 circuits shown. If the fuse was hooked into the buss
before the switch and there was a dead short at the switch, you would only
lose power to that circuit. Is this correct? If this is correct, I will
dismantel the panel and rewire it with fuse hooked to power buss before the
switch. I have never seen power to a switch and then to a fuse. I didn't
wire it this way The original builder wired it. It flew around 200 hours
like this and the original builder did what I would call high quality work.
I know that doesn't mean he was electrically knowledgeable, and I don't know
what fuse would blow if there was a dead short at one of the switches. I
know there are going to be alot of opinions out there, but who out there
knows for sure what will happen in this circuit.
Pat Reilly
Mod 3 582 Rebuild
Rockford, IL
> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:04:37 -0700
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> From: MichaelGibbs@cox.net
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
>
>
> Noel sez:
>
> >It is recommended that each of the circuit breakers or individual
> >fuses be attached directly to the power buss as they only protect
> >what is down circuit of them. From these breakers or fuses your
> >load is established.
>
> There's nothing wrong with attaching the breakers or fuses directly
> to the power buss, that's what I've always done, but a circuit
> breaker or fuse protects the device on the circuit it is in line
> with--it has no idea what is "up circuit" or "down circuit." When
> the current flow exceeds the threshold value, it opens the circuit,
> preventing any power flow.
>
> This:
>
> (+)-----[device]-----[breaker]-----(-)
>
> is equivalent to:
>
> (+)-----[breaker]-----[device]-----(-)
>
> When the breaker pops, they remain equivalent with no complete
> circuit, hence no current flow:
>
> (+)-----[device]-----
>
> or:
>
> -----[device]-----(-)
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster
> Phoenix, AZ
&g=====================
>===========
>
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
I did some "What if" computer weight and balance assuming 50 pounds for the landing
gear. With Francisco's weight and balance numbers the 50 pound gear can
be moved to zero inches from the datum (at wing leading edge) and it moved the
empty weight CG only about a half inch forward.
I think there is room in the numbers to move the gear forward enough that the tail
weight will take care of its self.
--------
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=227104#227104
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 |
|
I'll answer your question with a question
What happens if the switch gets shorted to ground, a real possibility.
+ ------(Switch) -------(fuse)----(Device)
|
(-)
What you describe is a switch frozen open not a short.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Gibbs
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:53 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
Pat sez:
>Mike and Noel, OK, I got what you are telling me. But, that does not
>answer my question.
>
>+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
>+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
>+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
>
>
>All the +'s on the left form a power buss. Mine is actually a wire
>connecting 1 terminal of each switch. Next in the circuit is the
>fuse. Mike, by your definition, shorting of the switch, which is not
>downline of the fuse would not be protected by that circuits fuse.
There is nothing wrong with your diagram. A switch that is "shorted"
is simply a switch that is turned on--it allows current to flow
through the circuit. You don't need to "protect" the switch from a
short. What you want to protect is the wire that forms the circuit,
which you've done by placing a fuse in the circuit. A short in the
device (with the switch on) would cause too much current flow through
the wire, and that's what the fuse will prevent by blowing, thus
opening the circuit and stopping the current flow.
>What would happen if there was a dead short at a switch?
The device would be on, nothing more.
>If the fuse was hooked into the buss before the switch and there was
>a dead short at the switch, you would only lose power to that
>circuit.
No. Opening a circuit anywhere in the circuit prevents current flow.
It's not like a water leak which could continue to flow to the point
of the leak. Any break in a circuit stops the flow of electricity.
>I have never seen power to a switch and then to a fuse.
I didn't do mine this way but I see no problem with it.
>...I don't know what fuse would blow if there was a dead short at
>one of the switches.
The device controlled by the switch would be on and you couldn't turn
it off, that's all. But the same would be true even if you
rearranged your fuses and switches. As long as the device is not
shorted, the fuse shouldn't blow.
Mike G.
N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster
Phoenix, AZ
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: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
If wing cord is same on BrazFox as Kitfox wheel should be at same distance
from leading edge of wing.
(datum is something that can be placed any where, but is convenient to have
on same place as other of same brand.
Jan
www.jcpropellerdesign.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
> Paul,
>
> That is the problem I find with math. The typical weight if the Grove
> gear including fasteners and axle is 30 lbs and that was on personal
> inquiry from Grove. In my head you would be moving a 30 lb. wt. forward
> about 10 inches or so by my guess - no math, just looking at my uncovered
> fuselage and where his gear is and where mine is.
> Regarding the 55 lbs. That was calculated based on my tailwheel wt. vs.
> gross wt. and my airplane flew fine with full three point elevator
> authority. Lynn Matteson said his tailwheel wt was in the 55 lbs. range
> as well and that was at 6.25%. Maybe it is time for another survey :-).
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Franz - Merlin GT" <paul@eucleides.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
>
>> <paul@eucleides.com>
>>
>> On Mon, January 26, 2009 10:01 pm, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, Francisco, I wasn't too far off with the empty weight estimate,
>>> and it
>>> should fly fine based on your W&B numbers, but the tailwheel wt. should
>>> be
>>> much heavier. Since you have the spring gear, could you fabricate an
>>> extension that could be bolted to the gear at the axle attachment,
>>> extending
>>> the axle forward in increments until you get the 55 lbs. that you should
>>> have with that empty weight and that then would be your proper axle
>>> location.
>>
>> That would be more difficult than just calculating the effect of moving
>> it. Using his
>> spreadsheet numbers for weights and moments I could easily do that if I
>> only knew the
>> weight of his main gear. That is the weight of the assembly that would be
>> moved
>> forward.
>>
>> My concerns are getting the proper allowable weight and balance envelope
>> for his
>> particular airplane as moving the main gear forward will alter the CG.
>> Ideally it
>> should be moved forward as far as possible. The limits would be one of:
>>
>> 1) practical forward limit for attaching the gear to the structure
>> 2) forward CG limit
>> 3) maximum allowable tail wheel weight.
>>
>> I think normal conventional design is a tail wheel weight of 5 to 10% of
>> the gross
>> weight. This might be limited by the tail wheel spring(s) or the tail
>> wheel itself.
>> But, I think it could be much higher than 55 lbs. Certainly it needs to
>> be higher than
>> the 15 lbs he shows now.
>>
>> So, if you know the weight of the main gear assembly that would be moved
>> or in the
>> case of changing gear types, the weight of the old and the weight of the
>> new, I can
>> calculate new weights at the wheels for any new gear position. In fact, I
>> could do it
>> in spreadsheet fashion so you could just plug in the new moment arm and
>> get the
>> results.
>>
>> I guess one could do it for plugging in both the weight and the position.
>> For me it's
>> a matter of time available.
>>
>> --
>> Paul A. Franz
>> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
>> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
>> Bellevue WA
>> 425.241.1618 Cell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3804 (20090127) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
>
>
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: | KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
C of G is fine for flight. But only having 15 lb on the tail wheel means he
won't have to use very much brake to turn it on its nose.
Especially on a short field landing. One thing for sure he won't break any
tail springs.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Guy Buchanan
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 2:48 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
At 05:39 PM 1/26/2009, you wrote:
>Attached is excel file W&B of my aircraft info.
>
>Tks
Francisco,
My IV build manual shows a CG range of 10.7" - 14.8". The
latter was changed by service letter to 16". Where did you get your
numbers? Also, did you obtain your pilot location by weighing the
aircraft with the pilot in it? When I did my W&B I weighed with and
without pilot. I found the pilot location to be 15.8" behind datum.
Finally, is it true that your aircraft is not really a Kitfox IV, but
a copy? If so, I guess that none of this really matters, since it
appears your plane flies just fine.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
P.S. when nothing else works simple math does. ;-)
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
Paul,
That is the problem I find with math. The typical weight if the Grove gear
including fasteners and axle is 30 lbs and that was on personal inquiry from
Grove. In my head you would be moving a 30 lb. wt. forward about 10 inches
or so by my guess - no math, just looking at my uncovered fuselage and where
his gear is and where mine is.
Regarding the 55 lbs. That was calculated based on my tailwheel wt. vs.
gross wt. and my airplane flew fine with full three point elevator
authority. Lynn Matteson said his tailwheel wt was in the 55 lbs. range as
well and that was at 6.25%. Maybe it is time for another survey :-).
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Franz - Merlin GT" <paul@eucleides.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:10 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
> <paul@eucleides.com>
>
> On Mon, January 26, 2009 10:01 pm, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>>
>> Well, Francisco, I wasn't too far off with the empty weight estimate, and
>> it
>> should fly fine based on your W&B numbers, but the tailwheel wt. should
>> be
>> much heavier. Since you have the spring gear, could you fabricate an
>> extension that could be bolted to the gear at the axle attachment,
>> extending
>> the axle forward in increments until you get the 55 lbs. that you should
>> have with that empty weight and that then would be your proper axle
>> location.
>
> That would be more difficult than just calculating the effect of moving
> it. Using his
> spreadsheet numbers for weights and moments I could easily do that if I
> only knew the
> weight of his main gear. That is the weight of the assembly that would be
> moved
> forward.
>
> My concerns are getting the proper allowable weight and balance envelope
> for his
> particular airplane as moving the main gear forward will alter the CG.
> Ideally it
> should be moved forward as far as possible. The limits would be one of:
>
> 1) practical forward limit for attaching the gear to the structure
> 2) forward CG limit
> 3) maximum allowable tail wheel weight.
>
> I think normal conventional design is a tail wheel weight of 5 to 10% of
> the gross
> weight. This might be limited by the tail wheel spring(s) or the tail
> wheel itself.
> But, I think it could be much higher than 55 lbs. Certainly it needs to be
> higher than
> the 15 lbs he shows now.
>
> So, if you know the weight of the main gear assembly that would be moved
> or in the
> case of changing gear types, the weight of the old and the weight of the
> new, I can
> calculate new weights at the wheels for any new gear position. In fact, I
> could do it
> in spreadsheet fashion so you could just plug in the new moment arm and
> get the
> results.
>
> I guess one could do it for plugging in both the weight and the position.
> For me it's
> a matter of time available.
>
> --
> Paul A. Franz
> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
> Bellevue WA
> 425.241.1618 Cell
>
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
When I tested my VGs before/after stall speed I used my ASI instead of the GPS.
Because of the increased AOA when stalling with VG's, my Pitot tube was pointed
so high that it looked like I had almost dropped to 0 mph before I stalled.
(DUH). I was "Alerted", by one of the members to use the GPS speed (upwind
and downwind) and it came out not much better than listed in the specs. About
35-40 mph. Since I did not use the GPS for the before readings, I had no comparison.
The KF-7/ss showed a marked increase in stability when doing short field
landings and TO's. I never regretted I installed them.
rich
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=227128#227128
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: | KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
Re ran my calculations for a 65 lb tail wheel the answer comes out that the
main wheel should be .41 in ahead of the datum. This maintains the current
C of G
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
Paul,
That is the problem I find with math. The typical weight if the Grove gear
including fasteners and axle is 30 lbs and that was on personal inquiry from
Grove. In my head you would be moving a 30 lb. wt. forward about 10 inches
or so by my guess - no math, just looking at my uncovered fuselage and where
his gear is and where mine is.
Regarding the 55 lbs. That was calculated based on my tailwheel wt. vs.
gross wt. and my airplane flew fine with full three point elevator
authority. Lynn Matteson said his tailwheel wt was in the 55 lbs. range as
well and that was at 6.25%. Maybe it is time for another survey :-).
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Franz - Merlin GT" <paul@eucleides.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:10 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
> <paul@eucleides.com>
>
> On Mon, January 26, 2009 10:01 pm, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>>
>> Well, Francisco, I wasn't too far off with the empty weight estimate, and
>> it
>> should fly fine based on your W&B numbers, but the tailwheel wt. should
>> be
>> much heavier. Since you have the spring gear, could you fabricate an
>> extension that could be bolted to the gear at the axle attachment,
>> extending
>> the axle forward in increments until you get the 55 lbs. that you should
>> have with that empty weight and that then would be your proper axle
>> location.
>
> That would be more difficult than just calculating the effect of moving
> it. Using his
> spreadsheet numbers for weights and moments I could easily do that if I
> only knew the
> weight of his main gear. That is the weight of the assembly that would be
> moved
> forward.
>
> My concerns are getting the proper allowable weight and balance envelope
> for his
> particular airplane as moving the main gear forward will alter the CG.
> Ideally it
> should be moved forward as far as possible. The limits would be one of:
>
> 1) practical forward limit for attaching the gear to the structure
> 2) forward CG limit
> 3) maximum allowable tail wheel weight.
>
> I think normal conventional design is a tail wheel weight of 5 to 10% of
> the gross
> weight. This might be limited by the tail wheel spring(s) or the tail
> wheel itself.
> But, I think it could be much higher than 55 lbs. Certainly it needs to be
> higher than
> the 15 lbs he shows now.
>
> So, if you know the weight of the main gear assembly that would be moved
> or in the
> case of changing gear types, the weight of the old and the weight of the
> new, I can
> calculate new weights at the wheels for any new gear position. In fact, I
> could do it
> in spreadsheet fashion so you could just plug in the new moment arm and
> get the
> results.
>
> I guess one could do it for plugging in both the weight and the position.
> For me it's
> a matter of time available.
>
> --
> Paul A. Franz
> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
> Bellevue WA
> 425.241.1618 Cell
>
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: checking sparkchecking spark |
On the machines that I had access to, you screwed the plug into the
proper sized socket...14, 18 mm...and connected a wire from the
machine to the terminal, turned on the air pressure, and pressed a
button to create a steady spark. You looked into the mirror image and
watched the results. It seemed like you could also control the amount
of air pressure. I haven't seen one in years, nor have I seen a
distributor tester, whereby you could rev the dist. up to high rpm
and observe the advance mechanism in operation, as well as check for
point bounce, vacuum advance, dwell, 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
do not archive
On Jan 26, 2009, at 11:52 PM, patrick reilly wrote:
> Lynn, You can still buy the plug sandblaster from J.C. Whitney.
> But, I am not familiar with the hookup to test spark part.
>
> do not archive
>
> Pat Reilly
> Mod 3 582 Rebuild
> Rockford, IL
>
>
> > From: lynnmatt@jps.net
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: checking sparkchecking spark
> > Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:29:43 -0500
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >
> >
> > God, I had forgotten all about them...I used to clean plugs on an
> > actual sandblast machine built for such a thing, and it had the
> > "bomb" (where'd THAT name come from?) as a part of the machine. Sure
> > don't see those things anymore. Most people just replace
> > plugs...probably find those old AC, Champion, whatever-brand
> machines
> > at the older neighborhood automotive repair garages.
> >
> > 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 26, 2009, at 6:41 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
> >
> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> > >
> > > A machine the you screw the sparkplug into and run a spark through
> > > it. There
> > > is generally a mirror and a window to see the plug spark under air
> > > pressure.
> > > (shop air) It takes a lot more power to make a spark jump under
> > > pressure and
> > > there can even be small faults with the plug itself that cause the
> > > plug to
> > > short under the pressure of a running engine. Most certified
> > > engines will
> > > have the plugs tested in this way before installation.
> Generally it
> > > is a
> > > good idea to check the gap on new plugs too.
> > >
> > > Noel
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn
> > > Matteson
> > > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 4:53 PM
> > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: checking sparkchecking spark
> > >
> <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> > >
> > > New one on me, Dick....what's a "bomb" tester?
> > >
> > > 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 26, 2009, at 8:45 AM, Catz631@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> I had a similar problem with my 912. It was running a little
> rough
> > >> with an uneven mag check. The plugs were new so I dismissed
> that as
> > >> the problem. During my annual while awaiting parts I decided to
> > >> pull them and test them under air pressure load with my friends
> > >> "bomb" tester. Sure enough, one of the plugs was dead and
> wouldn't
> > >> fire (actually it did but intermittently with a weak spark) From
> > >> now on I will test each plug even when new.
> > >> The engine is now very smooth running with equal drops on the mag
> > >> check.
> > >> Dick
> > >> Maddux
> > >>
> > >> Pensacola,Fl
> > >>
> > >> From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between,
> stay up-
> > >> to-date with the latest news. _-
> > >> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> > >> =========
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ><= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> &g===
> >
> >
> >
>
> ============================================================ _-
> ============================================================ _-
> 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 |
|
Noel & Maryanne=2C That is my question! I know that the device will not shu
t off with a frozen switch as Mike talks about. And=2C that is not a "short
". I was worried about a short(to ground) of a switch. Not an electrically
frozen switch. It wouldn't matter where the fuse was located with a "frozen
" switch. I guess I should tear the switch/fuse system out and run the elec
tricty from source through the fuse=2C and then to the switch. Makes sense
to me. How in the Hell can a guy that did such high quality work on the res
t of the plane be that uninformed on the electrical cirrcuitry. I have neve
r seen power to a switch and then a fuse=2C except in a battery shut off sw
itch. Pat ReillyMod 3 582 RebuildRockford=2C IL> From: noelloveys@yahoo.ca
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring> Da
"Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>> > I'll answer your question with a qu
estion> > What happens if the switch gets shorted to ground=2C a real possi
bility.> > + ------(Switch) -------(fuse)----(Device)> |> (-)> > What you d
escribe is a switch frozen open not a short.> > Noel> > -----Original Messa
ge-----> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com> [mailto:owner-kitfox
-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Gibbs> Sent: Tuesday=2C Ja
nuary 27=2C 2009 1:53 AM> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> Subject: RE: Kitfo
ichaelGibbs@cox.net>> > Pat sez:> > >Mike and Noel=2C OK=2C I got what you
are telling me. But=2C that does not > >answer my question.> >> >+-----(Swi
tch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)> >+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise
)----(-)> >+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)> >> >> >All the +'
s on the left form a power buss. Mine is actually a wire > >connecting 1 te
rminal of each switch. Next in the circuit is the > >fuse. Mike=2C by your
definition=2C shorting of the switch=2C which is not > >downline of the fus
e would not be protected by that circuits fuse.> > There is nothing wrong w
ith your diagram. A switch that is "shorted" > is simply a switch that is t
urned on--it allows current to flow > through the circuit. You don't need t
o "protect" the switch from a > short. What you want to protect is the wire
that forms the circuit=2C > which you've done by placing a fuse in the cir
cuit. A short in the > device (with the switch on) would cause too much cur
rent flow through > the wire=2C and that's what the fuse will prevent by bl
owing=2C thus > opening the circuit and stopping the current flow.> > >What
would happen if there was a dead short at a switch?> > The device would be
on=2C nothing more.> > >If the fuse was hooked into the buss before the sw
itch and there was > >a dead short at the switch=2C you would only lose pow
er to that > >circuit.> > No. Opening a circuit anywhere in the circuit pre
vents current flow. > It's not like a water leak which could continue to fl
ow to the point > of the leak. Any break in a circuit stops the flow of ele
ctricity.> > >I have never seen power to a switch and then to a fuse.> > I
didn't do mine this way but I see no problem with it.> > >...I don't know w
hat fuse would blow if there was a dead short at > >one of the switches.> >
The device controlled by the switch would be on and you couldn't turn > it
off=2C that's all. But the same would be true even if you > rearranged you
r fuses and switches. As long as the device is not > shorted=2C the fuse sh
ouldn't blow.> > Mike G.> N728KF=2C Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster> Phoenix=2C AZ
==================> > >
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 |
|
Any change in cruise speed?
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich L" <kitfox812@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:05 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: VG's
>
> When I tested my VGs before/after stall speed I used my ASI instead of the
> GPS. Because of the increased AOA when stalling with VG's, my Pitot tube
> was pointed so high that it looked like I had almost dropped to 0 mph
> before I stalled. (DUH). I was "Alerted", by one of the members to use
> the GPS speed (upwind and downwind) and it came out not much better than
> listed in the specs. About 35-40 mph. Since I did not use the GPS for the
> before readings, I had no comparison. The KF-7/ss showed a marked
> increase in stability when doing short field landings and TO's. I never
> regretted I installed them.
>
> rich
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=227128#227128
>
>
>
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Tank Expose |
I was involved in the one-man cleaning and sloshing of my tanks which
I had already installed when I found out about the need to service
them. I rotated mine in my wings jigs, and end-for-end inside the
shop...all work done inside the shop. No flaking after nearly 3 years
of flying. Just don't be in a hurry to call the job done....as it is
with ALL matters pertaining to the building of a Kitfox.
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 27, 2009, at 9:17 AM, fox5flyer wrote:
> Dick, there have been some cases here on the list where the tanks
> were cleaned and resloshed without removing them from the wings.
> Several people got together and after removing the wings from the
> airplane, were able to do the job just by rotating the wings. I'm
> sure it's a big chore, but not nearly as much as completely
> removing the tanks. Hopefully someone who was involved will pop up
> to give the details.
> 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: Catz631@aol.com
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Tank Expose
>
> Thanks Andy ! I look forward to the pictures as I too have the
> white sealent possibly flaking in my tanks (borescope). I am
> keeping a cutious watch on my wing tank filters. If I see small
> flakes or blockage,then I will have to go through the task of
> pulling the wings and removing the tanks.
> Dick Maddux
> Pensacola,Fl
>
> From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay up-
> to-date with the latest news.
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://
> www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://
> forums.matronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/
> contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c_-
> ============================================================ _-
> ============================================================ _-
> ============================================================ _-
> contribution_-
> ===========================================================
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: Panel Wiring |
So how would that happen, exactly?
Mike G.
N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster
Phoenix, AZ
On Jan 27, 2009, at 9:37 AM, "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> I'll answer your question with a question
>
> What happens if the switch gets shorted to ground, a real possibility.
>
> + ------(Switch) -------(fuse)----(Device)
> |
> (-)
>
> What you describe is a switch frozen open not a short.
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
> Gibbs
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:53 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
>
> <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Pat sez:
>
>> Mike and Noel, OK, I got what you are telling me. But, that does not
>> answer my question.
>>
>> +-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
>> +-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
>> +-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
>>
>>
>> All the +'s on the left form a power buss. Mine is actually a wire
>> connecting 1 terminal of each switch. Next in the circuit is the
>> fuse. Mike, by your definition, shorting of the switch, which is not
>> downline of the fuse would not be protected by that circuits fuse.
>
> There is nothing wrong with your diagram. A switch that is "shorted"
> is simply a switch that is turned on--it allows current to flow
> through the circuit. You don't need to "protect" the switch from a
> short. What you want to protect is the wire that forms the circuit,
> which you've done by placing a fuse in the circuit. A short in the
> device (with the switch on) would cause too much current flow through
> the wire, and that's what the fuse will prevent by blowing, thus
> opening the circuit and stopping the current flow.
>
>> What would happen if there was a dead short at a switch?
>
> The device would be on, nothing more.
>
>> If the fuse was hooked into the buss before the switch and there was
>> a dead short at the switch, you would only lose power to that
>> circuit.
>
> No. Opening a circuit anywhere in the circuit prevents current flow.
> It's not like a water leak which could continue to flow to the point
> of the leak. Any break in a circuit stops the flow of electricity.
>
>> I have never seen power to a switch and then to a fuse.
>
> I didn't do mine this way but I see no problem with it.
>
>> ...I don't know what fuse would blow if there was a dead short at
>> one of the switches.
>
> The device controlled by the switch would be on and you couldn't turn
> it off, that's all. But the same would be true even if you
> rearranged your fuses and switches. As long as the device is not
> shorted, the fuse shouldn't blow.
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster
> Phoenix, AZ
>
>
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 |
|
I would never THINK of putting "local hardware stuff" on my plane in
that application, and in fact, I'd probably change the shock cords
every two years, or at least take a tension check every season, and
keep a log. The most expensive stuff is cheap enough for the less-
than 16 feet I use on my skis.
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 27, 2009, at 10:05 AM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> The tag isn't worth its weight in gold on any amateur built but you
> put
> local hardware store stuff on a Super Cub and you may find out how
> valuable
> a little yellow tag can be. In the meantime it's that little tag that
> allows any aircraft supplier to charge more for it. So in a way it
> still
> worth gold ... just not yours or mine.
>
> Relaxing the tension on the chords will certainly help keep their
> tension
> especially in cold weather. As for getting five years. It's more
> than
> possible if they are taken care of as you mentioned, dark cool storage
> space. I had my boat moored in my boathouse with bungee cord. It
> keeps the
> boat centred in the house with the tides going up and down. After
> a couple
> of years they need to be replaced at the first sign of wear! It is
> amazing
> how fast they will disintegrate once wear starts to show.
>
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn
> Matteson
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 10:10 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ski Tuck
>
>
> Both Spruce and Wicks Aircraft Supply cite Mil-Spec numbers for their
> shock cord...Spruce says theirs is pre-stretched "for an ultimate
> elongation of 120-140%"
> How is the tag worth it's weight in gold.....on an experimental pair
> of skis on an experimental airplane?
> I have even begun to follow FAA's suggestion to relax the cords when
> parked overnight or longer....which is most of the time. I would
> surmise that if it is common practice to change landing gear bungees
> every two years, we may well get 5 years out of ski shock cords,
> especially if relaxed as suggested....and kept out of sunlight for
> most of their life.
>
> 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 26, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
>> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>>
>> Lynn:
>>
>> That's because it isn't certified shock cord. If you get your cord
>> from
>> Aviall expect to pay a lot more for it but it will come with a tag
>> used to
>> certify the plane. Are the cords from Aviall any better? No, but
>> the tag
>> is worth its weight in gold. A rule of thumb is to replace all
>> chords every
>> five years. On our small planes we may get twice that life out of
>> them.
>> Like everything else check them over in the fall when you install
>> your skis.
>> Most chord will extend .61 % (from 1 ft. to 1.61 ft) so for the
>> skis I
>> would have the stretched length around 1.5 times the length at
>> rest. That
>> will give close to maximum lift on the chord without pulling it too
>> much.
>>
>> Noel
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn
>> Matteson
>> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 5:09 PM
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ski Tuck
>>
>>
>> It was new rubber about 2 weeks ago, fresh from Aircraft Spruce, and
>> it is white rubber. I think I just didn't put enough tension on them
>> when I cut them to length. I'm going to shorten them by about an inch
>> or maybe 1-1/2". And of course with building skis, you just order 16
>> feet of the stuff, and hope for the best and freshest batch. One of
>> my Tony Bingelis books shows a chart of the thread colors used in the
>> covering of the shock cords, which would allow you to check the
>> manufacturing date of the cords, but none of the cords that I've
>> ordered over the years from Spruce has matched the chart...ever.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: | KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
I just did a search on the web to try to get a handle on what the weight on
the tail wheel should be for similar configured airplanes, if not similar
weight. I checked C-180s and Pa-18s They both have the tail wheel out under
the rudder. They were all around 5.5% of total weight on tail give or take
0.1% except for one Super Cub that was way down at 4.6% and that guy was
having problems with his W&B.
Going by that search, and limited data, I calculated the tail of the plane
should be around 48.68 lb. Give or take a pound or two. To get that weight
on the tail wheel without changing the CG would require the mains be located
2.31 in aft of the datum. I double checked the calculations and that
includes the movement of the weight of the mains. I think he will be safe
by moving the mains 5" ahead. His plane should have the same flight
characteristics but be a lot safer landing.
Any way we want to cut the grass I think we all concur that the mains are
much too far aft to be safe if any braking is to be used. If he doesn't
mind loooooooong run outs and stays away from rough strips the gear that far
aft probably somewhat reduces the possibility of a landing loop as does the
far aft gear on a tricycle gear plane.
Noel
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: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
Actually, Lowell, it was 43 lbs when weighed level. Then I added a
transponder, so a few ounces would have gone in the direction of the
tail, but not much. Maybe with the extra leaf of the 3-leaf spring,
it might be up to 45 by now.
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 27, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Lowell Fitt wrote:
> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Paul,
>
> That is the problem I find with math. The typical weight if the
> Grove gear including fasteners and axle is 30 lbs and that was on
> personal inquiry from Grove. In my head you would be moving a 30
> lb. wt. forward about 10 inches or so by my guess - no math, just
> looking at my uncovered fuselage and where his gear is and where
> mine is.
> Regarding the 55 lbs. That was calculated based on my tailwheel wt.
> vs. gross wt. and my airplane flew fine with full three point
> elevator authority. Lynn Matteson said his tailwheel wt was in the
> 55 lbs. range as well and that was at 6.25%. Maybe it is time for
> another survey :-).
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Franz - Merlin GT"
> <paul@eucleides.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
>
>> <paul@eucleides.com>
>>
>> On Mon, January 26, 2009 10:01 pm, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>>> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>>>
>>> Well, Francisco, I wasn't too far off with the empty weight
>>> estimate, and it
>>> should fly fine based on your W&B numbers, but the tailwheel wt.
>>> should be
>>> much heavier. Since you have the spring gear, could you
>>> fabricate an
>>> extension that could be bolted to the gear at the axle
>>> attachment, extending
>>> the axle forward in increments until you get the 55 lbs. that you
>>> should
>>> have with that empty weight and that then would be your proper axle
>>> location.
>>
>> That would be more difficult than just calculating the effect of
>> moving it. Using his
>> spreadsheet numbers for weights and moments I could easily do that
>> if I only knew the
>> weight of his main gear. That is the weight of the assembly that
>> would be moved
>> forward.
>>
>> My concerns are getting the proper allowable weight and balance
>> envelope for his
>> particular airplane as moving the main gear forward will alter the
>> CG. Ideally it
>> should be moved forward as far as possible. The limits would be
>> one of:
>>
>> 1) practical forward limit for attaching the gear to the structure
>> 2) forward CG limit
>> 3) maximum allowable tail wheel weight.
>>
>> I think normal conventional design is a tail wheel weight of 5 to
>> 10% of the gross
>> weight. This might be limited by the tail wheel spring(s) or the
>> tail wheel itself.
>> But, I think it could be much higher than 55 lbs. Certainly it
>> needs to be higher than
>> the 15 lbs he shows now.
>>
>> So, if you know the weight of the main gear assembly that would be
>> moved or in the
>> case of changing gear types, the weight of the old and the weight
>> of the new, I can
>> calculate new weights at the wheels for any new gear position. In
>> fact, I could do it
>> in spreadsheet fashion so you could just plug in the new moment
>> arm and get the
>> results.
>>
>> I guess one could do it for plugging in both the weight and the
>> position. For me it's
>> a matter of time available.
>>
>> --
>> Paul A. Franz
>> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
>> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
>> Bellevue WA
>> 425.241.1618 Cell
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
There was no discernible change in speed. I have 64 VG's on each wing and 26 on
the bottom of each stabilizer.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=227169#227169
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
Seems like my mains were 1/2" ahead of datum (leading edge of wing)
or behind...can't recall which. This is with Grove gear.
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 27, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> Re ran my calculations for a 65 lb tail wheel the answer comes out
> that the
> main wheel should be .41 in ahead of the datum. This maintains the
> current
> C of G
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell
> Fitt
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:33 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Paul,
>
> That is the problem I find with math. The typical weight if the
> Grove gear
> including fasteners and axle is 30 lbs and that was on personal
> inquiry from
>
> Grove. In my head you would be moving a 30 lb. wt. forward about
> 10 inches
> or so by my guess - no math, just looking at my uncovered fuselage
> and where
>
> his gear is and where mine is.
> Regarding the 55 lbs. That was calculated based on my tailwheel wt.
> vs.
> gross wt. and my airplane flew fine with full three point elevator
> authority. Lynn Matteson said his tailwheel wt was in the 55 lbs.
> range as
> well and that was at 6.25%. Maybe it is time for another survey :-).
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Franz - Merlin GT" <paul@eucleides.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
>
>> <paul@eucleides.com>
>>
>> On Mon, January 26, 2009 10:01 pm, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>>> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>>>
>>> Well, Francisco, I wasn't too far off with the empty weight
>>> estimate, and
>
>>> it
>>> should fly fine based on your W&B numbers, but the tailwheel wt.
>>> should
>>> be
>>> much heavier. Since you have the spring gear, could you
>>> fabricate an
>>> extension that could be bolted to the gear at the axle attachment,
>>> extending
>>> the axle forward in increments until you get the 55 lbs. that you
>>> should
>>> have with that empty weight and that then would be your proper axle
>>> location.
>>
>> That would be more difficult than just calculating the effect of
>> moving
>> it. Using his
>> spreadsheet numbers for weights and moments I could easily do that
>> if I
>> only knew the
>> weight of his main gear. That is the weight of the assembly that
>> would be
>> moved
>> forward.
>>
>> My concerns are getting the proper allowable weight and balance
>> envelope
>> for his
>> particular airplane as moving the main gear forward will alter the
>> CG.
>> Ideally it
>> should be moved forward as far as possible. The limits would be
>> one of:
>>
>> 1) practical forward limit for attaching the gear to the structure
>> 2) forward CG limit
>> 3) maximum allowable tail wheel weight.
>>
>> I think normal conventional design is a tail wheel weight of 5 to
>> 10% of
>> the gross
>> weight. This might be limited by the tail wheel spring(s) or the tail
>> wheel itself.
>> But, I think it could be much higher than 55 lbs. Certainly it
>> needs to be
>
>> higher than
>> the 15 lbs he shows now.
>>
>> So, if you know the weight of the main gear assembly that would be
>> moved
>> or in the
>> case of changing gear types, the weight of the old and the weight
>> of the
>> new, I can
>> calculate new weights at the wheels for any new gear position. In
>> fact, I
>> could do it
>> in spreadsheet fashion so you could just plug in the new moment
>> arm and
>> get the
>> results.
>>
>> I guess one could do it for plugging in both the weight and the
>> position.
>> For me it's
>> a matter of time available.
>>
>> --
>> Paul A. Franz
>> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
>> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
>> Bellevue WA
>> 425.241.1618 Cell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
Better a loop than a nose-over.
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 27, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> I just did a search on the web to try to get a handle on what the
> weight on
> the tail wheel should be for similar configured airplanes, if not
> similar
> weight. I checked C-180s and Pa-18s They both have the tail wheel
> out under
> the rudder. They were all around 5.5% of total weight on tail give
> or take
> 0.1% except for one Super Cub that was way down at 4.6% and that
> guy was
> having problems with his W&B.
>
> Going by that search, and limited data, I calculated the tail of
> the plane
> should be around 48.68 lb. Give or take a pound or two. To get that
> weight
> on the tail wheel without changing the CG would require the mains
> be located
> 2.31 in aft of the datum. I double checked the calculations and that
> includes the movement of the weight of the mains. I think he will
> be safe
> by moving the mains 5" ahead. His plane should have the same flight
> characteristics but be a lot safer landing.
>
> Any way we want to cut the grass I think we all concur that the
> mains are
> much too far aft to be safe if any braking is to be used. If he
> doesn't
> mind loooooooong run outs and stays away from rough strips the gear
> that far
> aft probably somewhat reduces the possibility of a landing loop as
> does the
> far aft gear on a tricycle gear plane.
>
> Noel
>
>
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's good to hear, Rich. I've been considering for a long time installing
the VGs, but wasn't sure about there being a corresponding drag. All I'm
looking for is better low speed stability as my strip is relatively short
and sometimes it gets a bit challenging on a hot summer day, mainly landing.
My S5 has always performed as it should, but anything that improves it
without adding any significant weight has to be a good thing.
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: "Rich L" <kitfox812@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 3:11 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: VG's
>
> There was no discernible change in speed. I have 64 VG's on each wing and
> 26 on the bottom of each stabilizer.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=227169#227169
>
>
>
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 |
|
Mike=2C If the metal dash panel is grounded and the switch internals break
or wear a dead short to the metal grounded dash panel could could happen.Pa
t ReillyMod 3 582 RebuildRockford=2C IL> From: MichaelGibbs@cox.net> To: ki
tfox-list@matronics.com> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring> Date: Tue
l Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>> > So how would that happen=2C exactly?> > M
ike G.> N728KF=2C Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster> Phoenix=2C AZ> > > > > On Jan 2
7=2C 2009=2C at 9:37 AM=2C "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca> wrote:> > >
> I'll answer your question with a question> >> > What happens if the switc
h gets shorted to ground=2C a real possibility.> >> > + ------(Switch) ----
---(fuse)----(Device)> > |> > (-)> >> > What you describe is a switch froze
n open not a short.> >> > Noel> >> > -----Original Message-----> > From: ow
ner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@ma
tronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael > > Gibbs> > Sent: Tuesday=2C January 27
=2C 2009 1:53 AM> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> > Subject: RE: Kitfox-Li
<MichaelGibbs@cox.net>> >> > Pat sez:> >> >> Mike and Noel=2C OK=2C I got
what you are telling me. But=2C that does not> >> answer my question.> >>>
>> +-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)> >> +-----(Switch)-----(Fu
se)-----(Devise)----(-)> >> +-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)>
>>> >>> >> All the +'s on the left form a power buss. Mine is actually a wi
re> >> connecting 1 terminal of each switch. Next in the circuit is the> >>
fuse. Mike=2C by your definition=2C shorting of the switch=2C which is not
> >> downline of the fuse would not be protected by that circuits fuse.> >>
> There is nothing wrong with your diagram. A switch that is "shorted"> >
is simply a switch that is turned on--it allows current to flow> > through
the circuit. You don't need to "protect" the switch from a> > short. What y
ou want to protect is the wire that forms the circuit=2C> > which you've do
ne by placing a fuse in the circuit. A short in the> > device (with the swi
tch on) would cause too much current flow through> > the wire=2C and that's
what the fuse will prevent by blowing=2C thus> > opening the circuit and s
topping the current flow.> >> >> What would happen if there was a dead shor
t at a switch?> >> > The device would be on=2C nothing more.> >> >> If the
fuse was hooked into the buss before the switch and there was> >> a dead sh
ort at the switch=2C you would only lose power to that> >> circuit.> >> > N
o. Opening a circuit anywhere in the circuit prevents current flow.> > It's
not like a water leak which could continue to flow to the point> > of the
leak. Any break in a circuit stops the flow of electricity.> >> >> I have n
ever seen power to a switch and then to a fuse.> >> > I didn't do mine this
way but I see no problem with it.> >> >> ...I don't know what fuse would b
low if there was a dead short at> >> one of the switches.> >> > The device
controlled by the switch would be on and you couldn't turn> > it off=2C tha
t's all. But the same would be true even if you> > rearranged your fuses an
d switches. As long as the device is not> > shorted=2C the fuse shouldn't b
low.> >> > Mike G.> > N728KF=2C Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster> > Phoenix=2C AZ>
======================> > >
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: checking sparkchecking spark |
Lynn=2C I wasn't aware of the spark under pressure tester. I did know a dis
tributor tester existed. I never used or saw one though. Thanks for the inf
o. I hope when I am as old as you I know as much as you do. I'm working on
it. Actually=2C I better get my ass in gear. I'm only a couple of years you
nger.
do not archivePat ReillyMod 3 582 RebuildRockford=2C IL> From: lynnmatt@jps
.net> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: checking sparkchecking spark> Date: Tue
=2C 27 Jan 2009 13:53:57 -0500> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> > --> Kitfox
-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>> > On the machine
s that I had access to=2C you screwed the plug into the > proper sized sock
et...14=2C 18 mm...and connected a wire from the > machine to the terminal
=2C turned on the air pressure=2C and pressed a > button to create a steady
spark. You looked into the mirror image and > watched the results. It seem
ed like you could also control the amount > of air pressure. I haven't seen
one in years=2C nor have I seen a > distributor tester=2C whereby you coul
d rev the dist. up to high rpm > and observe the advance mechanism in opera
tion=2C as well as check for > point bounce=2C vacuum advance=2C dwell=2C e
tc.> > Lynn Matteson> Kitfox IV Speedster=2C taildragger> Jabiru 2200=2C #2
062=2C 600.2 hrs> Sensenich 62x46> Electroair direct-fire ignition system>
New skis done and flying> do not archive> > > > On Jan 26=2C 2009=2C at 11:
52 PM=2C patrick reilly wrote:> > > Lynn=2C You can still buy the plug sand
blaster from J.C. Whitney. > > But=2C I am not familiar with the hookup to
test spark part.> >> > do not archive> >> > Pat Reilly> > Mod 3 582 Rebuild
> > Rockford=2C IL> >> >> >> >> > > From: lynnmatt@jps.net> > > Subject: Re
: Kitfox-List: Re: checking sparkchecking spark> > > Date: Mon=2C 26 Jan 20
09 20:29:43 -0500> > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> > >> > > --> Kitfox-L
ist message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>> > >> > > God=2C I
had forgotten all about them...I used to clean plugs on an> > > actual sand
blast machine built for such a thing=2C and it had the> > > "bomb" (where'd
THAT name come from?) as a part of the machine. Sure> > > don't see those
things anymore. Most people just replace> > > plugs...probably find those o
ld AC=2C Champion=2C whatever-brand > > machines> > > at the older neighbor
hood automotive repair garages.> > >> > > Lynn Matteson> > > Kitfox IV Spee
dster=2C taildragger> > > Jabiru 2200=2C #2062=2C 600.2 hrs> > > Sensenich
62x46> > > Electroair direct-fire ignition system> > > New skis done and fl
ying> > > do not archive> > >> > >> > >> > > On Jan 26=2C 2009=2C at 6:41 P
l Loveys" > > <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>> > > >> > > > A machine the you screw t
he sparkplug into and run a spark through> > > > it. There> > > > is genera
lly a mirror and a window to see the plug spark under air> > > > pressure.>
> > > (shop air) It takes a lot more power to make a spark jump under> > >
> pressure and> > > > there can even be small faults with the plug itself
that cause the> > > > plug to> > > > short under the pressure of a running
engine. Most certified> > > > engines will> > > > have the plugs tested in
this way before installation. > > Generally it> > > > is a> > > > good idea
to check the gap on new plugs too.> > > >> > > > Noel> > > >> > > > -----O
riginal Message-----> > > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com> >
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn> > >
> Matteson> > > > Sent: Monday=2C January 26=2C 2009 4:53 PM> > > > To: ki
tfox-list@matronics.com> > > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: checking spark
on > > <lynnmatt@jps.net>> > > >> > > > New one on me=2C Dick....what's a "
bomb" tester?> > > >> > > > Lynn Matteson> > > > Kitfox IV Speedster=2C tai
ldragger> > > > Jabiru 2200=2C #2062=2C 600.2 hrs> > > > Sensenich 62x46> >
> > Electroair direct-fire ignition system> > > > New skis done and flying
> > > > do not archive> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > On Jan 26=2C 2009=2C at
8:45 AM=2C Catz631@aol.com wrote:> > > >> > > >> I had a similar problem wi
th my 912. It was running a little > > rough> > > >> with an uneven mag che
ck. The plugs were new so I dismissed > > that as> > > >> the problem. Duri
ng my annual while awaiting parts I decided to> > > >> pull them and test t
hem under air pressure load with my friends> > > >> "bomb" tester. Sure eno
ugh=2C one of the plugs was dead and > > wouldn't> > > >> fire (actually it
did but intermittently with a weak spark) From> > > >> now on I will test
each plug even when new.> > > >> The engine is now very smooth running with
equal drops on the mag> > > >> check.> > > >> Dick> > > >> Maddux> > > >>>
> > >> Pensacola=2CFl> > > >>> > > >> From Wall Street to Main Street and
everywhere in between=2C > > stay up-> > > >> to-date with the latest news.
_-> > > >> www.matronics.com/contribution _-> > > >> =======
===> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > ><= Archive Sear
ch & Download=2C 7-Day Browse=2C Chat=2C FAQ=2C> > &g====> > >> > >
> > >> >> > =====================
============== _- > > ========
== _- > > contribution_- > > ==============
===========> > >
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Tailwheel to tricycle conversion |
Paul,
If it is a 7 I am pretty sure they come from the factory able to convert
back and forth from Tricycle to tail dragger, a very nice feature. John
McBean could confirm.
Lloyd
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Franz -
Merlin GT
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:37 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Tailwheel to tricycle conversion
<paul@eucleides.com>
Here's a really nice looking KF Series 7:
<http://www.kitfoxaircraft.com/images/Recent%20Completions/BHoisington.htm>
I wonder which way the conversion was done? Started out as Tricycle gear or
conventional?
Maybe Bruce learned to fly in it as a tricycle gear then transitioned to
tail dragger
or maybe he too needed to move the main gear forward and decided to instead,
convert
to tricycle.
Anybody know the story on this?
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
Checked by AVG.
7:26 AM
Checked by AVG.
7:26 AM
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 |
|
| Subject: | Tailwheel to tricycle conversion |
On Tue, January 27, 2009 2:25 pm, Cudnohufsky's wrote:
>
> Paul,
> If it is a 7 I am pretty sure they come from the factory able to convert
> back and forth from Tricycle to tail dragger, a very nice feature. John
> McBean could confirm.
I found more information here:
<http://www.teamkitfox.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=223>
Which is another Kitfox forum that I discovered has a lot of members I'm familiar
with
from the past, like John King.
You might have to register to view the pictures, not sure what the limitations
are.
He says: "The conversion was not to difficult and took the better part of one day"
So you're probably correct, fairly straight forward conversion.
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
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 |
|
The answer to your question is no one told him... I was told years ago when
I studied aircraft wiring.
Noel
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of patrick reilly
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 3:31 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
Noel & Maryanne, That is my question! I know that the device will not shut
off with a frozen switch as Mike talks about. And, that is not a "short". I
was worried about a short(to ground) of a switch. Not an electrically frozen
switch. It wouldn't matter where the fuse was located with a "frozen"
switch. I guess I should tear the switch/fuse system out and run the
electricty from source through the fuse, and then to the switch. Makes sense
to me. How in the Hell can a guy that did such high quality work on the rest
of the plane be that uninformed on the electrical cirrcuitry. I have never
seen power to a switch and then a fuse, except in a battery shut off switch.
Pat Reilly
Mod 3 582 Rebuild
Rockford, IL
> From: noelloveys@yahoo.ca
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:07:48 -0330
>
>
> I'll answer your question with a question
>
> What happens if the switch gets shorted to ground, a real possibility.
>
> + ------(Switch) -------(fuse)----(Device)
> (-)
>
> What you describe is a switch frozen open not a short.
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Gibbs
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:53 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
>
>
> Pat sez:
>
> >Mike and Noel, OK, I got what you are telling me. But, that does not
> >answer my question.
> >
> >+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
> >+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
> >+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
> >
> >
> >All the +'s on the left form a power buss. Mine is actually a wire
> >connecting 1 terminal of each switch. Next in the circuit is the
> >fuse. Mike, by your definition, shorting of the switch, which is not
> >downline of the fuse would not be protected by that circuits fuse.
>
> There is nothing wrong with your diagram. A switch that is "shorted"
> is simply a switch that is turned on--it allows current to flow
> through the circuit. You don't need to "protect" the switch from a
> short. What you want to protect is the wire that forms the circuit,
> which you've done by placing a fuse in the circuit. A short in the
> device (with the switch on) would cause too much current flow through
> the wire, and that's what the fuse will prevent by blowing, thus
> opening the circuit and stopping the current flow.
>
> >What would happen if there was a dead short at a switch?
>
> The device would be on, nothing more.
>
> >If the fuse was hooked into the buss before the switch and there was
> >a dead short at the switch, you would only lose power to that
> >circuit.
>
> No. Opening a circuit anywhere in the circuit prevents current flow.
> It's not like a water leak which could continue to flow to the point
> of the leak. Any break in a circuit stops the flow of electricity.
>
> >I have never seen power to a switch and then to a fuse.
>
> I didn't do mine this way but I see no problem with it.
>
> >...I don't know what fuse would blow if there was a dead short at
> >one of the switches.
>
> The device controlled by the switch would be on and you couldn't turn
> it off, that's all. But the same would be true even if you
> rearranged your fuses and switches. As long as the device is not
> shorted, the fuse shouldn't blow.
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster
> Phoenix, AZ
>
>
>
>
>=====================
>===========
>
>
>
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 |
|
Simple a wire going to the switch rubbing off anything grounded. Possibly a
broken contact in the switch itself connecting directly to ground. A wearing
of the wire between the switch and the fuse. Fact is it has happened which
is why an avionics shop would never wire a circuit that way. Check any cert
plane they all have the breakers (or fuses) connected directly to buss.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Gibbs
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
So how would that happen, exactly?
Mike G.
N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster
Phoenix, AZ
On Jan 27, 2009, at 9:37 AM, "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> I'll answer your question with a question
>
> What happens if the switch gets shorted to ground, a real possibility.
>
> + ------(Switch) -------(fuse)----(Device)
> |
> (-)
>
> What you describe is a switch frozen open not a short.
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
> Gibbs
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:53 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
>
> <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Pat sez:
>
>> Mike and Noel, OK, I got what you are telling me. But, that does not
>> answer my question.
>>
>> +-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
>> +-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
>> +-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
>>
>>
>> All the +'s on the left form a power buss. Mine is actually a wire
>> connecting 1 terminal of each switch. Next in the circuit is the
>> fuse. Mike, by your definition, shorting of the switch, which is not
>> downline of the fuse would not be protected by that circuits fuse.
>
> There is nothing wrong with your diagram. A switch that is "shorted"
> is simply a switch that is turned on--it allows current to flow
> through the circuit. You don't need to "protect" the switch from a
> short. What you want to protect is the wire that forms the circuit,
> which you've done by placing a fuse in the circuit. A short in the
> device (with the switch on) would cause too much current flow through
> the wire, and that's what the fuse will prevent by blowing, thus
> opening the circuit and stopping the current flow.
>
>> What would happen if there was a dead short at a switch?
>
> The device would be on, nothing more.
>
>> If the fuse was hooked into the buss before the switch and there was
>> a dead short at the switch, you would only lose power to that
>> circuit.
>
> No. Opening a circuit anywhere in the circuit prevents current flow.
> It's not like a water leak which could continue to flow to the point
> of the leak. Any break in a circuit stops the flow of electricity.
>
>> I have never seen power to a switch and then to a fuse.
>
> I didn't do mine this way but I see no problem with it.
>
>> ...I don't know what fuse would blow if there was a dead short at
>> one of the switches.
>
> The device controlled by the switch would be on and you couldn't turn
> it off, that's all. But the same would be true even if you
> rearranged your fuses and switches. As long as the device is not
> shorted, the fuse shouldn't blow.
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster
> Phoenix, AZ
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
Did you do a W&B amendment for that leaf? ;-)
Noel
Sorry I get too caught up in the darn paperwork.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
Actually, Lowell, it was 43 lbs when weighed level. Then I added a
transponder, so a few ounces would have gone in the direction of the
tail, but not much. Maybe with the extra leaf of the 3-leaf spring,
it might be up to 45 by now.
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 27, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Lowell Fitt wrote:
> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Paul,
>
> That is the problem I find with math. The typical weight if the
> Grove gear including fasteners and axle is 30 lbs and that was on
> personal inquiry from Grove. In my head you would be moving a 30
> lb. wt. forward about 10 inches or so by my guess - no math, just
> looking at my uncovered fuselage and where his gear is and where
> mine is.
> Regarding the 55 lbs. That was calculated based on my tailwheel wt.
> vs. gross wt. and my airplane flew fine with full three point
> elevator authority. Lynn Matteson said his tailwheel wt was in the
> 55 lbs. range as well and that was at 6.25%. Maybe it is time for
> another survey :-).
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Franz - Merlin GT"
> <paul@eucleides.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
>
>> <paul@eucleides.com>
>>
>> On Mon, January 26, 2009 10:01 pm, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>>> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>>>
>>> Well, Francisco, I wasn't too far off with the empty weight
>>> estimate, and it
>>> should fly fine based on your W&B numbers, but the tailwheel wt.
>>> should be
>>> much heavier. Since you have the spring gear, could you
>>> fabricate an
>>> extension that could be bolted to the gear at the axle
>>> attachment, extending
>>> the axle forward in increments until you get the 55 lbs. that you
>>> should
>>> have with that empty weight and that then would be your proper axle
>>> location.
>>
>> That would be more difficult than just calculating the effect of
>> moving it. Using his
>> spreadsheet numbers for weights and moments I could easily do that
>> if I only knew the
>> weight of his main gear. That is the weight of the assembly that
>> would be moved
>> forward.
>>
>> My concerns are getting the proper allowable weight and balance
>> envelope for his
>> particular airplane as moving the main gear forward will alter the
>> CG. Ideally it
>> should be moved forward as far as possible. The limits would be
>> one of:
>>
>> 1) practical forward limit for attaching the gear to the structure
>> 2) forward CG limit
>> 3) maximum allowable tail wheel weight.
>>
>> I think normal conventional design is a tail wheel weight of 5 to
>> 10% of the gross
>> weight. This might be limited by the tail wheel spring(s) or the
>> tail wheel itself.
>> But, I think it could be much higher than 55 lbs. Certainly it
>> needs to be higher than
>> the 15 lbs he shows now.
>>
>> So, if you know the weight of the main gear assembly that would be
>> moved or in the
>> case of changing gear types, the weight of the old and the weight
>> of the new, I can
>> calculate new weights at the wheels for any new gear position. In
>> fact, I could do it
>> in spreadsheet fashion so you could just plug in the new moment
>> arm and get the
>> results.
>>
>> I guess one could do it for plugging in both the weight and the
>> position. For me it's
>> a matter of time available.
>>
>> --
>> Paul A. Franz
>> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
>> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
>> Bellevue WA
>> 425.241.1618 Cell
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
Lynn:
That's the way to keep your plane safe for years to come.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ski Tuck
I would never THINK of putting "local hardware stuff" on my plane in
that application, and in fact, I'd probably change the shock cords
every two years, or at least take a tension check every season, and
keep a log. The most expensive stuff is cheap enough for the less-
than 16 feet I use on my skis.
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 27, 2009, at 10:05 AM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> The tag isn't worth its weight in gold on any amateur built but you
> put
> local hardware store stuff on a Super Cub and you may find out how
> valuable
> a little yellow tag can be. In the meantime it's that little tag that
> allows any aircraft supplier to charge more for it. So in a way it
> still
> worth gold ... just not yours or mine.
>
> Relaxing the tension on the chords will certainly help keep their
> tension
> especially in cold weather. As for getting five years. It's more
> than
> possible if they are taken care of as you mentioned, dark cool storage
> space. I had my boat moored in my boathouse with bungee cord. It
> keeps the
> boat centred in the house with the tides going up and down. After
> a couple
> of years they need to be replaced at the first sign of wear! It is
> amazing
> how fast they will disintegrate once wear starts to show.
>
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn
> Matteson
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 10:10 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ski Tuck
>
>
> Both Spruce and Wicks Aircraft Supply cite Mil-Spec numbers for their
> shock cord...Spruce says theirs is pre-stretched "for an ultimate
> elongation of 120-140%"
> How is the tag worth it's weight in gold.....on an experimental pair
> of skis on an experimental airplane?
> I have even begun to follow FAA's suggestion to relax the cords when
> parked overnight or longer....which is most of the time. I would
> surmise that if it is common practice to change landing gear bungees
> every two years, we may well get 5 years out of ski shock cords,
> especially if relaxed as suggested....and kept out of sunlight for
> most of their life.
>
> 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 26, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
>> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>>
>> Lynn:
>>
>> That's because it isn't certified shock cord. If you get your cord
>> from
>> Aviall expect to pay a lot more for it but it will come with a tag
>> used to
>> certify the plane. Are the cords from Aviall any better? No, but
>> the tag
>> is worth its weight in gold. A rule of thumb is to replace all
>> chords every
>> five years. On our small planes we may get twice that life out of
>> them.
>> Like everything else check them over in the fall when you install
>> your skis.
>> Most chord will extend .61 % (from 1 ft. to 1.61 ft) so for the
>> skis I
>> would have the stretched length around 1.5 times the length at
>> rest. That
>> will give close to maximum lift on the chord without pulling it too
>> much.
>>
>> Noel
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn
>> Matteson
>> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 5:09 PM
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ski Tuck
>>
>>
>> It was new rubber about 2 weeks ago, fresh from Aircraft Spruce, and
>> it is white rubber. I think I just didn't put enough tension on them
>> when I cut them to length. I'm going to shorten them by about an inch
>> or maybe 1-1/2". And of course with building skis, you just order 16
>> feet of the stuff, and hope for the best and freshest batch. One of
>> my Tony Bingelis books shows a chart of the thread colors used in the
>> covering of the shock cords, which would allow you to check the
>> manufacturing date of the cords, but none of the cords that I've
>> ordered over the years from Spruce has matched the chart...ever.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
For sure, Noel, then comes the flight testing and the tweaking to correct
for the math, making everything correspond to the desired performance. In
some of the articles I found on airfoils, Mr. Riblett was criticized for
having never subjected any of his designs to wind tunnel testing. And this
criticism was from aeronautical engineers - very much versed in math. So
much for math as the last word IMHO. In fact in one article, talk was of
one engineer working on one of the recent jet fighter wings doing all sorts
of things with numbers on his computer and in frustration, a senior
engineer, took a piece of flat plywood did some minor leading edge shaping
(by hand) and got wind tunnel results quite similar to the highly designed
wing profile.
It is sort of like a lot of our discussions, we all know what should happen,
then some curious guy actually tries it - take VGs for example and finds
results that vary considerably from expectations and the arguments begin.
On the Lancair list - while I was helping on that project - a guy built a
Lancair IV and made removable wingtips of both designs, the straight tip and
the winglet tip. He tested both tips on the same airframe. He found that
with the winglets, he lost cruise speed and everyone knew that was
impossible and the flames began there too.
Lowell
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:04 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
> P.S. when nothing else works simple math does. ;-)
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:33 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
>
> Paul,
>
> That is the problem I find with math. The typical weight if the Grove
> gear
> including fasteners and axle is 30 lbs and that was on personal inquiry
> from
>
> Grove. In my head you would be moving a 30 lb. wt. forward about 10
> inches
> or so by my guess - no math, just looking at my uncovered fuselage and
> where
>
> his gear is and where mine is.
> Regarding the 55 lbs. That was calculated based on my tailwheel wt. vs.
> gross wt. and my airplane flew fine with full three point elevator
> authority. Lynn Matteson said his tailwheel wt was in the 55 lbs. range
> as
> well and that was at 6.25%. Maybe it is time for another survey :-).
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Franz - Merlin GT" <paul@eucleides.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
>
>> <paul@eucleides.com>
>>
>> On Mon, January 26, 2009 10:01 pm, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, Francisco, I wasn't too far off with the empty weight estimate,
>>> and
>
>>> it
>>> should fly fine based on your W&B numbers, but the tailwheel wt. should
>>> be
>>> much heavier. Since you have the spring gear, could you fabricate an
>>> extension that could be bolted to the gear at the axle attachment,
>>> extending
>>> the axle forward in increments until you get the 55 lbs. that you should
>>> have with that empty weight and that then would be your proper axle
>>> location.
>>
>> That would be more difficult than just calculating the effect of moving
>> it. Using his
>> spreadsheet numbers for weights and moments I could easily do that if I
>> only knew the
>> weight of his main gear. That is the weight of the assembly that would be
>> moved
>> forward.
>>
>> My concerns are getting the proper allowable weight and balance envelope
>> for his
>> particular airplane as moving the main gear forward will alter the CG.
>> Ideally it
>> should be moved forward as far as possible. The limits would be one of:
>>
>> 1) practical forward limit for attaching the gear to the structure
>> 2) forward CG limit
>> 3) maximum allowable tail wheel weight.
>>
>> I think normal conventional design is a tail wheel weight of 5 to 10% of
>> the gross
>> weight. This might be limited by the tail wheel spring(s) or the tail
>> wheel itself.
>> But, I think it could be much higher than 55 lbs. Certainly it needs to
>> be
>
>> higher than
>> the 15 lbs he shows now.
>>
>> So, if you know the weight of the main gear assembly that would be moved
>> or in the
>> case of changing gear types, the weight of the old and the weight of the
>> new, I can
>> calculate new weights at the wheels for any new gear position. In fact, I
>> could do it
>> in spreadsheet fashion so you could just plug in the new moment arm and
>> get the
>> results.
>>
>> I guess one could do it for plugging in both the weight and the position.
>> For me it's
>> a matter of time available.
>>
>> --
>> Paul A. Franz
>> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
>> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
>> Bellevue WA
>> 425.241.1618 Cell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
Point, Match & Game Matteson.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
Better a loop than a nose-over.
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 27, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> I just did a search on the web to try to get a handle on what the
> weight on
> the tail wheel should be for similar configured airplanes, if not
> similar
> weight. I checked C-180s and Pa-18s They both have the tail wheel
> out under
> the rudder. They were all around 5.5% of total weight on tail give
> or take
> 0.1% except for one Super Cub that was way down at 4.6% and that
> guy was
> having problems with his W&B.
>
> Going by that search, and limited data, I calculated the tail of
> the plane
> should be around 48.68 lb. Give or take a pound or two. To get that
> weight
> on the tail wheel without changing the CG would require the mains
> be located
> 2.31 in aft of the datum. I double checked the calculations and that
> includes the movement of the weight of the mains. I think he will
> be safe
> by moving the mains 5" ahead. His plane should have the same flight
> characteristics but be a lot safer landing.
>
> Any way we want to cut the grass I think we all concur that the
> mains are
> much too far aft to be safe if any braking is to be used. If he
> doesn't
> mind loooooooong run outs and stays away from rough strips the gear
> that far
> aft probably somewhat reduces the possibility of a landing loop as
> does the
> far aft gear on a tricycle gear plane.
>
> Noel
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
Mr.
Lynn Matterson
Noel Loveys
Jan - JC Propeller Design
Tom Jones
Paul Franz - Merlin GT
Guy Buchanan
Tks a lot!!! For all infomations !
I will read carefully all of emails with sugestions and will send you news
when take a decision.
Tks
FD
www.dcubj3.com.br
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
> Better a loop than a nose-over.
>
> 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 27, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
>>
>> I just did a search on the web to try to get a handle on what the
>> weight on
>> the tail wheel should be for similar configured airplanes, if not
>> similar
>> weight. I checked C-180s and Pa-18s They both have the tail wheel
>> out under
>> the rudder. They were all around 5.5% of total weight on tail give
>> or take
>> 0.1% except for one Super Cub that was way down at 4.6% and that
>> guy was
>> having problems with his W&B.
>>
>> Going by that search, and limited data, I calculated the tail of
>> the plane
>> should be around 48.68 lb. Give or take a pound or two. To get that
>> weight
>> on the tail wheel without changing the CG would require the mains
>> be located
>> 2.31 in aft of the datum. I double checked the calculations and that
>> includes the movement of the weight of the mains. I think he will
>> be safe
>> by moving the mains 5" ahead. His plane should have the same flight
>> characteristics but be a lot safer landing.
>>
>> Any way we want to cut the grass I think we all concur that the
>> mains are
>> much too far aft to be safe if any braking is to be used. If he
>> doesn't
>> mind loooooooong run outs and stays away from rough strips the gear
>> that far
>> aft probably somewhat reduces the possibility of a landing loop as
>> does the
>> far aft gear on a tricycle gear plane.
>>
>> Noel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
18:37
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Back on the list after 9 years! |
Dick, Thanks for the info on your Mod. IV. the gap seal is a no brainer, and
I need to go ahead and do it. Several years ago, I did put together a
makeshift gap seal out of duct tape just to try it. I made a few touch and
go's and could detect a slight difference, but nothing major. Guess that's
why I never made it permanent. My main reason for looking into this again is
because of the safety considerations of not being able to easily 3 point. If
I ever had to shoe-horn it in somewhere, a wheel landing just isn't going to
cut it!
Today I ordered the flap/trim interconnect kit from Kitfox, LLC. I'm hoping
that's going to help.
Regarding the BRS, I should probably call them. Mine is the big 1500 sf
canopy with this mongo rocket. I suspect the replacement is pretty
expensive. I too have heard of BRS deployments well out of date that went
just fine. I suppose the fact that mine is sealed and hangared gives me hope
that all is okay. Maybe wishful thinking.
John
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 7:47 AM, <Catz631@aol.com> wrote:
> John,
> Welcome to the list!!
> I have a Fox 4 that also likes to wheel land and is somewhat of a chore to
> 3 point. The cg is in range and I also have a BRS chute in a canister behind
> the pax seat.(thats almost 30 lbs) I too have the gap seals on the elevator
> and VG's under the rear stab. It seems to make very little difference
> (although the gap seals did help a little)
> By the way,I just had my BRS repacked. It cost me $695 and that is the
> half price special which BRS offers in the winter. If interested call
> Derrick at BRS. The chute pack is good for 6 years and the rocket 12 years.
> I have a friend at my field who told me that he and a buddy fired off a
> BRS chute and it was almost 17 years old. He said it worked fine. They did
> it on the ground. I don't know if this is true or not as he tends to
> exaggerate and in any case I would not want to wait that long!
> Dick Maddux
> Kitfox 4-1200
> Pensacola,Fl
>
> ------------------------------
> From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay up-to-date
> with the latest news <http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023>.
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: checking sparkchecking spark |
I think the secret to knowing a little bit about a lot of things is
to become bored quick...and move on to something else...helps to
build a half-assed resume. : )
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 27, 2009, at 5:04 PM, patrick reilly wrote:
> Lynn, I wasn't aware of the spark under pressure tester. I did know
> a distributor tester existed. I never used or saw one though.
> Thanks for the info. I hope when I am as old as you I know as much
> as you do. I'm working on it. Actually, I better get my ass in
> gear. I'm only a couple of years younger.
> do not archive
>
> Pat Reilly
> Mod 3 582 Rebuild
> Rockford, IL
>
>
> > From: lynnmatt@jps.net
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: checking sparkchecking spark
> > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:53:57 -0500
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >
> >
> > On the machines that I had access to, you screwed the plug into the
> > proper sized socket...14, 18 mm...and connected a wire from the
> > machine to the terminal, turned on the air pressure, and pressed a
> > button to create a steady spark. You looked into the mirror image
> and
> > watched the results. It seemed like you could also control the
> amount
> > of air pressure. I haven't seen one in years, nor have I seen a
> > distributor tester, whereby you could rev the dist. up to high rpm
> > and observe the advance mechanism in operation, as well as check for
> > point bounce, vacuum advance, dwell, 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
> > do not archive
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 26, 2009, at 11:52 PM, patrick reilly wrote:
> >
> > > Lynn, You can still buy the plug sandblaster from J.C. Whitney.
> > > But, I am not familiar with the hookup to test spark part.
> > >
> > > do not archive
> > >
> > > Pat Reilly
> > > Mod 3 582 Rebuild
> > > Rockford, IL
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > From: lynnmatt@jps.net
> > > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: checking sparkchecking spark
> > > > Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:29:43 -0500
> > > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > >
> <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> > > >
> > > > God, I had forgotten all about them...I used to clean plugs
> on an
> > > > actual sandblast machine built for such a thing, and it had the
> > > > "bomb" (where'd THAT name come from?) as a part of the
> machine. Sure
> > > > don't see those things anymore. Most people just replace
> > > > plugs...probably find those old AC, Champion, whatever-brand
> > > machines
> > > > at the older neighborhood automotive repair garages.
> > > >
> > > > 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 26, 2009, at 6:41 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
> > > >
> > > <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> > > > >
> > > > > A machine the you screw the sparkplug into and run a spark
> through
> > > > > it. There
> > > > > is generally a mirror and a window to see the plug spark
> under air
> > > > > pressure.
> > > > > (shop air) It takes a lot more power to make a spark jump
> under
> > > > > pressure and
> > > > > there can even be small faults with the plug itself that
> cause the
> > > > > plug to
> > > > > short under the pressure of a running engine. Most certified
> > > > > engines will
> > > > > have the plugs tested in this way before installation.
> > > Generally it
> > > > > is a
> > > > > good idea to check the gap on new plugs too.
> > > > >
> > > > > Noel
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > > > > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of Lynn
> > > > > Matteson
> > > > > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 4:53 PM
> > > > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: checking sparkchecking spark
> > > > >
> > > <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> > > > >
> > > > > New one on me, Dick....what's a "bomb" tester?
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 26, 2009, at 8:45 AM, Catz631@aol.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I had a similar problem with my 912. It was running a little
> > > rough
> > > > >> with an uneven mag check. The plugs were new so I dismissed
> > > that as
> > > > >> the problem. During my annual while awaiting parts I
> decided to
> > > > >> pull them and test them under air pressure load with my
> friends
> > > > >> "bomb" tester. Sure enough, one of the plugs was dead and
> > > wouldn't
> > > > >> fire (actually it did but intermittently with a weak
> spark) From
> > > > >> now on I will test each plug even when new.
> > > > >> The engine is now very smooth running with equal drops on
> the mag
> > > > >> check.
> > > > >> Dick
> > > > >> Maddux
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Pensacola,Fl
> > > > >>
> > > > >> From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between,
> > > stay up-
> > > > >> to-date with the latest news. _-
> > > > >> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> > > > >> =========
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > ><= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> > > &g===
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ========== _-
> > > =================================== _-
> > > contribution_-
> > > ===============================
> >=================
> >
> >
> >
>
> ============================================================ _-
> ============================================================ _-
> 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 |
|
[quote="Dick Maddux"]Lynn,
Each set of two VG's is about 6 inches apart or so about 5 1/2 inches back from
the leading edge on the top of the wing and the one's on the stab are on the
bottom about 2 inches in front of the hinge.
I flew again yesterday and I do like them. As I said before, it does make the
aircraft more stable at lower speeds. I can definitely feel it.
One of these days I will go up and do a stall series to see if there are any
differences in stall speed which at one test, didn't seem to be. I need to reset
the warning airspeed on my TrueTrak anyway.
Dick Maddux
Fox 4-1200
Pensacola,Fl
> [b]
I used the pattern supplied by Land Shorter. The VG's are 3" apart at 5.1" back
from the leading edge. They should be ~10% of the wingspan apart, and 1% of
the cord, including flaperons.
They (land shorter) say the VGs should be put 1" ahead of the hinge line on the
underside of the stabilizer.
Take this for what it is worth... the opinion of a snake oil salesman lol....
--------
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=227247#227247
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: checking sparkchecking spark |
I'll check the plugs as the source of the problem tomorrow by swapping the non-firing
pair with a pair that is firing.
This one really has me stumped.? With the much appreciated phone consultation services
of a technician at Lockwood, I have checked for correct resistance from
the magnetic pick-ups (where the ignition system originates) to?the wire harness
connecting the magnetic pick-up to the ignition module, confirmed the ignition
modlues are operating correctly by swapping modules and getting the same?two
plugs not firing, and finally checking for the correct resistance in each
coil by checking resistance from one plug wire through?the associated ignition
coil and out?to the end of the paired plug wire (both with and without spark
plug caps).?? Running out?of ideas....
Chris
Kitfox 7, 912S?
-----Original Message-----
From: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 7:31 pm
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: checking sparkchecking spark
?
I think the secret to knowing a little bit about a lot of things is to become bored
quick...and move on to something else...helps to build a half-assed resume.
: )?
?
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 27, 2009, at 5:04 PM, patrick reilly wrote:?
?
> Lynn, I wasn't aware of the spark under pressure tester. I did know > a distributor
tester existed. I never used or saw one though. > Thanks for the info.
I hope when I am as old as you I know as much > as you do. I'm working on it.
Actually, I better get my ass in > gear. I'm only a couple of years younger.?
> do not archive?
>?
> Pat Reilly?
> Mod 3 582 Rebuild?
> Rockford, IL?
>?
>?
>?
>?
> > From: lynnmatt@jps.net?
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: checking sparkchecking spark?
> > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:53:57 -0500?
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com?
> >?
> >?
> > On the machines that I had access to, you screwed the plug into the?
> > proper sized socket...14, 18 mm...and connected a wire from the?
> > machine to the terminal, turned on the air pressure, and pressed a?
> > button to create a steady spark. You looked into the mirror image > and?
> > watched the results. It seemed like you could also control the > amount?
> > of air pressure. I haven't seen one in years, nor have I seen a?
> > distributor tester, whereby you could rev the dist. up to high rpm?
> > and observe the advance mechanism in operation, as well as check for?
> > point bounce, vacuum advance, dwell, 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?
> > do not archive?
> >?
> >?
> >?
> > On Jan 26, 2009, at 11:52 PM, patrick reilly wrote:?
> >?
> > > Lynn, You can still buy the plug sandblaster from J.C. Whitney.?
> > > But, I am not familiar with the hookup to test spark part.?
> > >?
> > > do not archive?
> > >?
> > > Pat Reilly?
> > > Mod 3 582 Rebuild?
> > > Rockford, IL?
> > >?
> > >?
> > >?
> > >?
> > > > From: lynnmatt@jps.net?
> > > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: checking sparkchecking spark?
> > > > Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:29:43 -0500?
> > > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com?
> > > >?
> > > >?
> > > > God, I had forgotten all about them...I used to clean plugs > on an?
> > > > actual sandblast machine built for such a thing, and it had the?
> > > > "bomb" (where'd THAT name come from?) as a part of the > machine. Sure?
> > > > don't see those things anymore. Most people just replace?
> > > > plugs...probably find those old AC, Champion, whatever-brand?
> > > machines?
> > > > at the older neighborhood automotive repair garages.?
> > > >?
> > > > 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 26, 2009, at 6:41 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:?
> > > >?
> > > <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>?
> > > > >?
> > > > > A machine the you screw the sparkplug into and run a spark > through?
> > > > > it. There?
> > > > > is generally a mirror and a window to see the plug spark > under air?
> > > > > pressure.?
> > > > > (shop air) It takes a lot more power to make a spark jump > under?
> > > > > pressure and?
> > > > > there can even be small faults with the plug itself that > cause the?
> > > > > plug to?
> > > > > short under the pressure of a running engine. Most certified?
> > > > > engines will?
> > > > > have the plugs tested in this way before installation.?
> > > Generally it?
> > > > > is a?
> > > > > good idea to check the gap on new plugs too.?
> > > > >?
> > > > > Noel?
> > > > >?
> > > > > -----Original Message-----?
> > > > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com?
> > > > > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Lynn?
> > > > > Matteson?
> > > > > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 4:53 PM?
> > > > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com?
> > > > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: checking sparkchecking spark?
> > > > >?
> > > <lynnmatt@jps.net>?
> > > > >?
> > > > > New one on me, Dick....what's a "bomb" tester??
> > > > >?
> > > > > 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 26, 2009, at 8:45 AM, Catz631@aol.com wrote:?
> > > > >?
> > > > >> I had a similar problem with my 912. It was running a little?
> > > rough?
> > > > >> with an uneven mag check. The plugs were new so I dismissed?
> > > that as?
> > > > >> the problem. During my annual while awaiting parts I > decided to?
> > > > >> pull them and test them under air pressure load with my > friends?
> > > > >> "bomb" tester. Sure enough, one of the plugs was dead and?
> > > wouldn't?
> > > > >> fire (actually it did but intermittently with a weak > spark) From?
> > > > >> now on I will test each plug even when new.?
> > > > >> The engine is now very smooth running with equal drops on > the mag?
> > > > >> check.?
> > > > >> Dick?
> > > > >> Maddux?
> > > > >>?
> > > > >> Pensacola,Fl?
> > > > >>?
> > > > >> From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between,?
> > > stay up-?
> > > > >> to-date with the latest news. _-?
> > > > >> www.matronics.com/contribution _-?
> > > > >> ==========?
> > > > >?
> > > > >?
> > > > >?
> > > > >?
> > > > >?
> > > > >?
> > > > ><= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,?
> > > &g====?
> > > >?
> > > >?
> > > >?
> > >?
> > > ========== _-?
> > > =================================== _-?
> > > contribution_-?
> > > ================================?
> >==================?
> >?
> >?
> >?
>?
> ============================================================ _-> ============================================================
_-> contribution_-> ============================================================?
?
?
?
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
Mr. Noel
The first decision was change laminar "grove type" gear to "tube bush" gear
less weight, more realiable
after two weeks of work (I think) I will do a new W&B
after that I will send you news
Tks a lot for useful information
FD
www.dcubj3.com.br
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:18 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
> Did you do a W&B amendment for that leaf? ;-)
>
> Noel
>
> Sorry I get too caught up in the darn paperwork.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:10 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
>
> Actually, Lowell, it was 43 lbs when weighed level. Then I added a
> transponder, so a few ounces would have gone in the direction of the
> tail, but not much. Maybe with the extra leaf of the 3-leaf spring,
> it might be up to 45 by now.
>
> 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 27, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>
>> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> That is the problem I find with math. The typical weight if the
>> Grove gear including fasteners and axle is 30 lbs and that was on
>> personal inquiry from Grove. In my head you would be moving a 30
>> lb. wt. forward about 10 inches or so by my guess - no math, just
>> looking at my uncovered fuselage and where his gear is and where
>> mine is.
>> Regarding the 55 lbs. That was calculated based on my tailwheel wt.
>> vs. gross wt. and my airplane flew fine with full three point
>> elevator authority. Lynn Matteson said his tailwheel wt was in the
>> 55 lbs. range as well and that was at 6.25%. Maybe it is time for
>> another survey :-).
>>
>> Lowell
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Franz - Merlin GT"
>> <paul@eucleides.com>
>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:10 AM
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>>
>>
>>> <paul@eucleides.com>
>>>
>>> On Mon, January 26, 2009 10:01 pm, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>>>> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>>>>
>>>> Well, Francisco, I wasn't too far off with the empty weight
>>>> estimate, and it
>>>> should fly fine based on your W&B numbers, but the tailwheel wt.
>>>> should be
>>>> much heavier. Since you have the spring gear, could you
>>>> fabricate an
>>>> extension that could be bolted to the gear at the axle
>>>> attachment, extending
>>>> the axle forward in increments until you get the 55 lbs. that you
>>>> should
>>>> have with that empty weight and that then would be your proper axle
>>>> location.
>>>
>>> That would be more difficult than just calculating the effect of
>>> moving it. Using his
>>> spreadsheet numbers for weights and moments I could easily do that
>>> if I only knew the
>>> weight of his main gear. That is the weight of the assembly that
>>> would be moved
>>> forward.
>>>
>>> My concerns are getting the proper allowable weight and balance
>>> envelope for his
>>> particular airplane as moving the main gear forward will alter the
>>> CG. Ideally it
>>> should be moved forward as far as possible. The limits would be
>>> one of:
>>>
>>> 1) practical forward limit for attaching the gear to the structure
>>> 2) forward CG limit
>>> 3) maximum allowable tail wheel weight.
>>>
>>> I think normal conventional design is a tail wheel weight of 5 to
>>> 10% of the gross
>>> weight. This might be limited by the tail wheel spring(s) or the
>>> tail wheel itself.
>>> But, I think it could be much higher than 55 lbs. Certainly it
>>> needs to be higher than
>>> the 15 lbs he shows now.
>>>
>>> So, if you know the weight of the main gear assembly that would be
>>> moved or in the
>>> case of changing gear types, the weight of the old and the weight
>>> of the new, I can
>>> calculate new weights at the wheels for any new gear position. In
>>> fact, I could do it
>>> in spreadsheet fashion so you could just plug in the new moment
>>> arm and get the
>>> results.
>>>
>>> I guess one could do it for plugging in both the weight and the
>>> position. For me it's
>>> a matter of time available.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul A. Franz
>>> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
>>> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
>>> Bellevue WA
>>> 425.241.1618 Cell
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
18:15
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 |
|
| Subject: | KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
As a photographic technician I have spent a good part of a lifetime working
with simple math...and it has yet to fail me. The math I use is nothing
compared to fluid dynamics or structural analysis. That stuff is so far out
of my league I hope I spelled it right.
I think we all agree the mains are too far back for comfort.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
For sure, Noel, then comes the flight testing and the tweaking to correct
for the math, making everything correspond to the desired performance. In
some of the articles I found on airfoils, Mr. Riblett was criticized for
having never subjected any of his designs to wind tunnel testing. And this
criticism was from aeronautical engineers - very much versed in math. So
much for math as the last word IMHO. In fact in one article, talk was of
one engineer working on one of the recent jet fighter wings doing all sorts
of things with numbers on his computer and in frustration, a senior
engineer, took a piece of flat plywood did some minor leading edge shaping
(by hand) and got wind tunnel results quite similar to the highly designed
wing profile.
It is sort of like a lot of our discussions, we all know what should happen,
then some curious guy actually tries it - take VGs for example and finds
results that vary considerably from expectations and the arguments begin.
On the Lancair list - while I was helping on that project - a guy built a
Lancair IV and made removable wingtips of both designs, the straight tip and
the winglet tip. He tested both tips on the same airframe. He found that
with the winglets, he lost cruise speed and everyone knew that was
impossible and the flames began there too.
Lowell
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:04 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
> P.S. when nothing else works simple math does. ;-)
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:33 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
>
> Paul,
>
> That is the problem I find with math. The typical weight if the Grove
> gear
> including fasteners and axle is 30 lbs and that was on personal inquiry
> from
>
> Grove. In my head you would be moving a 30 lb. wt. forward about 10
> inches
> or so by my guess - no math, just looking at my uncovered fuselage and
> where
>
> his gear is and where mine is.
> Regarding the 55 lbs. That was calculated based on my tailwheel wt. vs.
> gross wt. and my airplane flew fine with full three point elevator
> authority. Lynn Matteson said his tailwheel wt was in the 55 lbs. range
> as
> well and that was at 6.25%. Maybe it is time for another survey :-).
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Franz - Merlin GT" <paul@eucleides.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
>
>> <paul@eucleides.com>
>>
>> On Mon, January 26, 2009 10:01 pm, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, Francisco, I wasn't too far off with the empty weight estimate,
>>> and
>
>>> it
>>> should fly fine based on your W&B numbers, but the tailwheel wt. should
>>> be
>>> much heavier. Since you have the spring gear, could you fabricate an
>>> extension that could be bolted to the gear at the axle attachment,
>>> extending
>>> the axle forward in increments until you get the 55 lbs. that you should
>>> have with that empty weight and that then would be your proper axle
>>> location.
>>
>> That would be more difficult than just calculating the effect of moving
>> it. Using his
>> spreadsheet numbers for weights and moments I could easily do that if I
>> only knew the
>> weight of his main gear. That is the weight of the assembly that would be
>> moved
>> forward.
>>
>> My concerns are getting the proper allowable weight and balance envelope
>> for his
>> particular airplane as moving the main gear forward will alter the CG.
>> Ideally it
>> should be moved forward as far as possible. The limits would be one of:
>>
>> 1) practical forward limit for attaching the gear to the structure
>> 2) forward CG limit
>> 3) maximum allowable tail wheel weight.
>>
>> I think normal conventional design is a tail wheel weight of 5 to 10% of
>> the gross
>> weight. This might be limited by the tail wheel spring(s) or the tail
>> wheel itself.
>> But, I think it could be much higher than 55 lbs. Certainly it needs to
>> be
>
>> higher than
>> the 15 lbs he shows now.
>>
>> So, if you know the weight of the main gear assembly that would be moved
>> or in the
>> case of changing gear types, the weight of the old and the weight of the
>> new, I can
>> calculate new weights at the wheels for any new gear position. In fact, I
>> could do it
>> in spreadsheet fashion so you could just plug in the new moment arm and
>> get the
>> results.
>>
>> I guess one could do it for plugging in both the weight and the position.
>> For me it's
>> a matter of time available.
>>
>> --
>> Paul A. Franz
>> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
>> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
>> Bellevue WA
>> 425.241.1618 Cell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel Wiring |
Patrick,
To answer your question why someone did something is hard to
answer without talking to him or her. Most people think the fuse or
breaker is there to protect radio, etc. The breaker or fuse is in
there to protect the wire that feeds the load. I have worked in the
electrical field for more than 35 years and is very common for people to
misunderstand there function. I am glad to see you are going to
correct the problem . This will make it a safer plane for you to fly.
You don't want a fire while you are flying....
Marwynne Kuhn
Hilltop Lakes 0TE4
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel Loveys
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 6:12 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
The answer to your question is no one told him... I was told years ago
when I studied aircraft wiring.
Noel
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of patrick
reilly
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 3:31 PM
To: kitfox matronics
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
Noel & Maryanne, That is my question! I know that the device will not
shut off with a frozen switch as Mike talks about. And, that is not a
"short". I was worried about a short(to ground) of a switch. Not an
electrically frozen switch. It wouldn't matter where the fuse was
located with a "frozen" switch. I guess I should tear the switch/fuse
system out and run the electricty from source through the fuse, and then
to the switch. Makes sense to me. How in the Hell can a guy that did
such high quality work on the rest of the plane be that uninformed on
the electrical cirrcuitry. I have never seen power to a switch and then
a fuse, except in a battery shut off switch.
Pat Reilly
Mod 3 582 Rebuild
Rockford, IL
> From: noelloveys@yahoo.ca
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:07:48 -0330
>
<noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>
> I'll answer your question with a question
>
> What happens if the switch gets shorted to ground, a real
possibility.
>
> + ------(Switch) -------(fuse)----(Device)
> |
> (-)
>
> What you describe is a switch frozen open not a short.
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Gibbs
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:53 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
>
<MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Pat sez:
>
> >Mike and Noel, OK, I got what you are telling me. But, that does
not
> >answer my question.
> >
> >+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
> >+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
> >+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
> >
> >
> >All the +'s on the left form a power buss. Mine is actually a wire
> >connecting 1 terminal of each switch. Next in the circuit is the
> >fuse. Mike, by your definition, shorting of the switch, which is
not
> >downline of the fuse would not be protected by that circuits fuse.
>
> There is nothing wrong with your diagram. A switch that is "shorted"
> is simply a switch that is turned on--it allows current to flow
> through the circuit. You don't need to "protect" the switch from a
> short. What you want to protect is the wire that forms the circuit,
> which you've done by placing a fuse in the circuit. A short in the
> device (with the switch on) would cause too much current flow
through
> the wire, and that's what the fuse will prevent by blowing, thus
> opening the circuit and stopping the current flow.
>
> >What would happen if there was a dead short at a switch?
>
> The device would be on, nothing more.
>
> >If the fuse was hooked into the buss before the switch and there
was
> >a dead short at the switch, you would only lose power to that
> >circuit.
>
> No. Opening a circuit anywhere in the circuit prevents current flow.
> It's not like a water leak which could continue to flow to the point
> of the leak. Any break in a circuit stops the flow of electricity.
>
> >I have never seen power to a switch and then to a fuse.
>
> I didn't do mine this way but I see no problem with it.
>
> >...I don't know what fuse would blow if there was a dead short at
> >one of the switches.
>
> The device controlled by the switch would be on and you couldn't
turn
> it off, that's all. But the same would be true even if you
> rearranged your fuses and switches. As long as the device is not
> shorted, the fuse shouldn't blow.
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster
> Phoenix, AZ
>
>
>
>
>=====================
>===========
>
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 62
| 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: | KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
I'll be waiting to hear how it turns out for you.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Francisco
Drovetta
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
<dcubj3@terra.com.br>
Mr. Noel
The first decision was change laminar "grove type" gear to "tube bush" gear
less weight, more realiable
after two weeks of work (I think) I will do a new W&B
after that I will send you news
Tks a lot for useful information
FD
www.dcubj3.com.br
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:18 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
> Did you do a W&B amendment for that leaf? ;-)
>
> Noel
>
> Sorry I get too caught up in the darn paperwork.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:10 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
>
> Actually, Lowell, it was 43 lbs when weighed level. Then I added a
> transponder, so a few ounces would have gone in the direction of the
> tail, but not much. Maybe with the extra leaf of the 3-leaf spring,
> it might be up to 45 by now.
>
> 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 27, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>
>> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> That is the problem I find with math. The typical weight if the
>> Grove gear including fasteners and axle is 30 lbs and that was on
>> personal inquiry from Grove. In my head you would be moving a 30
>> lb. wt. forward about 10 inches or so by my guess - no math, just
>> looking at my uncovered fuselage and where his gear is and where
>> mine is.
>> Regarding the 55 lbs. That was calculated based on my tailwheel wt.
>> vs. gross wt. and my airplane flew fine with full three point
>> elevator authority. Lynn Matteson said his tailwheel wt was in the
>> 55 lbs. range as well and that was at 6.25%. Maybe it is time for
>> another survey :-).
>>
>> Lowell
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Franz - Merlin GT"
>> <paul@eucleides.com>
>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:10 AM
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>>
>>
>>> <paul@eucleides.com>
>>>
>>> On Mon, January 26, 2009 10:01 pm, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>>>> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>>>>
>>>> Well, Francisco, I wasn't too far off with the empty weight
>>>> estimate, and it
>>>> should fly fine based on your W&B numbers, but the tailwheel wt.
>>>> should be
>>>> much heavier. Since you have the spring gear, could you
>>>> fabricate an
>>>> extension that could be bolted to the gear at the axle
>>>> attachment, extending
>>>> the axle forward in increments until you get the 55 lbs. that you
>>>> should
>>>> have with that empty weight and that then would be your proper axle
>>>> location.
>>>
>>> That would be more difficult than just calculating the effect of
>>> moving it. Using his
>>> spreadsheet numbers for weights and moments I could easily do that
>>> if I only knew the
>>> weight of his main gear. That is the weight of the assembly that
>>> would be moved
>>> forward.
>>>
>>> My concerns are getting the proper allowable weight and balance
>>> envelope for his
>>> particular airplane as moving the main gear forward will alter the
>>> CG. Ideally it
>>> should be moved forward as far as possible. The limits would be
>>> one of:
>>>
>>> 1) practical forward limit for attaching the gear to the structure
>>> 2) forward CG limit
>>> 3) maximum allowable tail wheel weight.
>>>
>>> I think normal conventional design is a tail wheel weight of 5 to
>>> 10% of the gross
>>> weight. This might be limited by the tail wheel spring(s) or the
>>> tail wheel itself.
>>> But, I think it could be much higher than 55 lbs. Certainly it
>>> needs to be higher than
>>> the 15 lbs he shows now.
>>>
>>> So, if you know the weight of the main gear assembly that would be
>>> moved or in the
>>> case of changing gear types, the weight of the old and the weight
>>> of the new, I can
>>> calculate new weights at the wheels for any new gear position. In
>>> fact, I could do it
>>> in spreadsheet fashion so you could just plug in the new moment
>>> arm and get the
>>> results.
>>>
>>> I guess one could do it for plugging in both the weight and the
>>> position. For me it's
>>> a matter of time available.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul A. Franz
>>> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
>>> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
>>> Bellevue WA
>>> 425.241.1618 Cell
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
18:15
Message 63
| 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: checking sparkchecking spark |
Lynn=2C Your right on that. I have enough projects going=2C that I get bore
d with and start another=2C to last the rest of my life. I do get back to t
hem eventually. Problem is it takes awhile to figure out where you left off
. It took me 25+ years to get my 47 Ford on the road with a divorce and 4 m
oves. But=2C by God I did it. Someday I'll get around to putting an interio
r in it.
do not archivePat ReillyMod 3 582 RebuildRockford=2C IL> From: lynnmatt@jps
.net> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: checking sparkchecking spark> Date: Tue
=2C 27 Jan 2009 19:31:01 -0500> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> > --> Kitfox
-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>> > I think the se
cret to knowing a little bit about a lot of things is > to become bored qui
ck...and move on to something else...helps to > build a half-assed resume.
: )> > Lynn Matteson> Kitfox IV Speedster=2C taildragger> Jabiru 2200=2C #2
062=2C 600.2 hrs> Sensenich 62x46> Electroair direct-fire ignition system>
New skis done and flying> do not archive> > > > On Jan 27=2C 2009=2C at 5:0
4 PM=2C patrick reilly wrote:> > > Lynn=2C I wasn't aware of the spark unde
r pressure tester. I did know > > a distributor tester existed. I never use
d or saw one though. > > Thanks for the info. I hope when I am as old as yo
u I know as much > > as you do. I'm working on it. Actually=2C I better get
my ass in > > gear. I'm only a couple of years younger.> > do not archive>
>> > Pat Reilly> > Mod 3 582 Rebuild> > Rockford=2C IL> >> >> >> >> > > Fr
om: lynnmatt@jps.net> > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: checking sparkcheck
ing spark> > > Date: Tue=2C 27 Jan 2009 13:53:57 -0500> > > To: kitfox-list
lynnmatt@jps.net>> > >> > > On the machines that I had access to=2C you scr
ewed the plug into the> > > proper sized socket...14=2C 18 mm...and connect
ed a wire from the> > > machine to the terminal=2C turned on the air pressu
re=2C and pressed a> > > button to create a steady spark. You looked into t
he mirror image > > and> > > watched the results. It seemed like you could
also control the > > amount> > > of air pressure. I haven't seen one in yea
rs=2C nor have I seen a> > > distributor tester=2C whereby you could rev th
e dist. up to high rpm> > > and observe the advance mechanism in operation
=2C as well as check for> > > point bounce=2C vacuum advance=2C dwell=2C et
c.> > >> > > Lynn Matteson> > > Kitfox IV Speedster=2C taildragger> > > Jab
iru 2200=2C #2062=2C 600.2 hrs> > > Sensenich 62x46> > > Electroair direct-
fire ignition system> > > New skis done and flying> > > do not archive> > >
> > >> > >> > > On Jan 26=2C 2009=2C at 11:52 PM=2C patrick reilly wrote:>
> >> > > > Lynn=2C You can still buy the plug sandblaster from J.C. Whitney
.> > > > But=2C I am not familiar with the hookup to test spark part.> > >
>> > > > do not archive> > > >> > > > Pat Reilly> > > > Mod 3 582 Rebuild>
> > > Rockford=2C IL> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > From: lynnmatt@jp
s.net> > > > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: checking sparkchecking spark>
> > > > Date: Mon=2C 26 Jan 2009 20:29:43 -0500> > > > > To: kitfox-list@ma
son > > <lynnmatt@jps.net>> > > > >> > > > > God=2C I had forgotten all abo
ut them...I used to clean plugs > > on an> > > > > actual sandblast machine
built for such a thing=2C and it had the> > > > > "bomb" (where'd THAT nam
e come from?) as a part of the > > machine. Sure> > > > > don't see those t
hings anymore. Most people just replace> > > > > plugs...probably find thos
e old AC=2C Champion=2C whatever-brand> > > > machines> > > > > at the olde
r neighborhood automotive repair garages.> > > > >> > > > > Lynn Matteson>
> > > > Kitfox IV Speedster=2C taildragger> > > > > Jabiru 2200=2C #2062=2C
600.2 hrs> > > > > Sensenich 62x46> > > > > Electroair direct-fire ignitio
n system> > > > > New skis done and flying> > > > > do not archive> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > On Jan 26=2C 2009=2C at 6:41 PM=2C Noel Loveys
> > > > <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>> > > > > >> > > > > > A machine the you screw
the sparkplug into and run a spark > > through> > > > > > it. There> > > >
> > is generally a mirror and a window to see the plug spark > > under air
> > > > > > pressure.> > > > > > (shop air) It takes a lot more power to ma
ke a spark jump > > under> > > > > > pressure and> > > > > > there can even
be small faults with the plug itself that > > cause the> > > > > > plug to
> > > > > > short under the pressure of a running engine. Most certified> >
> > > > engines will> > > > > > have the plugs tested in this way before i
nstallation.> > > > Generally it> > > > > > is a> > > > > > good idea to ch
eck the gap on new plugs too.> > > > > >> > > > > > Noel> > > > > >> > > >
> > -----Original Message-----> > > > > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@ma
tronics.com> > > > > > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On B
ehalf > > Of Lynn> > > > > > Matteson> > > > > > Sent: Monday=2C January 26
=2C 2009 4:53 PM> > > > > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> > > > > > Subjec
t: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: checking sparkchecking spark> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > New one on me=2C Dick....what's a "bomb" tester?> > >
> > >> > > > > > Lynn Matteson> > > > > > Kitfox IV Speedster=2C taildragg
er> > > > > > Jabiru 2200=2C #2062=2C 600.2 hrs> > > > > > Sensenich 62x46>
> > > > > Electroair direct-fire ignition system> > > > > > New skis done
and flying> > > > > > do not archive> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > On Jan 26=2C 2009=2C at 8:45 AM=2C Catz631@aol.com wrote:> > > > > >>
> > > > >> I had a similar problem with my 912. It was running a little> >
> > rough> > > > > >> with an uneven mag check. The plugs were new so I di
smissed> > > > that as> > > > > >> the problem. During my annual while awai
ting parts I > > decided to> > > > > >> pull them and test them under air p
ressure load with my > > friends> > > > > >> "bomb" tester. Sure enough=2C
one of the plugs was dead and> > > > wouldn't> > > > > >> fire (actually it
did but intermittently with a weak > > spark) From> > > > > >> now on I wi
ll test each plug even when new.> > > > > >> The engine is now very smooth
running with equal drops on > > the mag> > > > > >> check.> > > > > >> Dick
> > > > > >> Maddux> > > > > >>> > > > > >> Pensacola=2CFl> > > > > >>> > >
> > >> From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between=2C> > > >
stay up-> > > > > >> to-date with the latest news. _-> > > > > >> www.matr
onics.com/contribution _-> > > > > >> ==========> > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > ><=
Archive Search & Download=2C 7-Day Browse=2C Chat=2C FAQ=2C> > > > &g==
==> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > =========
= _-> > > > ====================
=============== _-> > > > contribution_-> > >
> ========================
========> > >===============
===> > >> > >> > >> >> > ==============
===================== _- > > =
========= _- > > contribution_- > > =======
==================> > >
Message 64
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hi All=2C
For those of you that would like to see a little bit of the birth place of
Kitfox=2C click on the link below. Feed back bad or good would be apprecia
ted.
Clint Bazzill N9666T over 1400 hours
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6172626728685089396&ei=Gdh_SYb
zMpbUqAO9kIyWDg&q=kitfox+factory+fly-in&emb=1
Message 65
| 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: Home of Kitfox |
NICE! The rotec powered is what these should all sound like!
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Leonard Perry
Soldotna AK
Avid "C" / Mk IV
582 IVO IFA
Full Lotus 1260
#1 snake oil salesman since 1-22-2009
hander outer of humorless darwin awards
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=227297#227297
Message 66
| 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: Home of Kitfox |
On Tue, January 27, 2009 8:03 pm, Clint Bazzill wrote:
> For those of you that would like to see a little bit of the birth place of Kitfox,
> click on the link below. Feed back bad or good would be appreciated.
>
> Clint Bazzill N9666T over 1400 hours
>
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6172626728685089396&ei=Gdh_SYbzMpbUqAO9kIyWDg&q=kitfox+factory+fly-in&emb=1
Thanks
Thanks for that one Clint. I really enjoyed that. I really liked the audio you
included. Engine sounds, radio traffic and your narration.
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
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! --
|