Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:22 AM - Bungee gear limit cables (was) Re: model 5 gear pictures (akflyer)
2. 07:27 AM - What gear ratio are you running? (akflyer)
3. 07:45 AM - Re: What gear ratio are you running? (Tom Jones)
4. 07:47 AM - Re: Bungee gear limit cables (was) Re: model 5 gear pictures (Lowell Fitt)
5. 08:14 AM - Gear (Harry Cieslar)
6. 08:30 AM - Bungee gear limit cables (was) Re: model 5 gear pictures (AKFLYERBOB)
7. 09:12 AM - Re: What gear ratio are you running? (Guy Buchanan)
8. 12:45 PM - Re: Re: model 5 gear pictures (fox5flyer)
9. 02:22 PM - radio noise (369PL)
10. 05:54 PM - Re: radio noise (KITFOXZ@aol.com)
11. 09:13 PM - Re: radio noise (Jim_and_Lucy Chuk)
12. 11:35 PM - Re: radio noise (Michel Verheughe)
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: Bungee gear limit cables (was) Re: model 5 gear pictures |
Lowell,
Your original post seemed to imply that you were more in favor of removing the
limit cables, though you did mention that if you were to leave them on, to lengthen
them. I agree that they should be lengthened but Bob was saying that leaving
them off all together was not a good idea. I agree, but also added in the
other thread that the safety cables should be moved in to the inside of the
"triangle" formed where the rear gear legs tie into the cross tube. The failures
I have see were right were the bungies wrap around the cross bar so a safety
cable does NO good in the event of a gear failure at that point. I know cause
I found myself on the nose in my brothers KF II (he was the one doing the
crashing not me) lol.
off for a day on the river, then back to the hangar to get the new floats installed
on my bird so the real fun flying can begin!
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Leonard Perry aka SNAKE
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=247937#247937
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: | What gear ratio are you running? |
For the guys still loving the smell of 2 stroke smoke, what gear ratio and prop
are you running?
I took someones advice and went to 3:1 instead of the 2.62:1 and was very disappointed
in the results. I lost about 5 mph on cruise, a couple hundred FPM on
climb and fuel burn went up about 1 gallon an hour to cruise at the same speed.
I was just gonna live with it till I was out a couple days ago with the guy
that bought my brothers KF II. The KF on FLOATS out cruised my Avid on wheels..
He was running 5500 and I was at 5900 with him slowly pulling away. I know
I am pretty nose heavy and the 24" tires I have are more drag than normal,
but to be out performed by a KF on full lotus floats was a down right embarrassment!
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Leonard Perry aka SNAKE
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=247938#247938
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: What gear ratio are you running? |
Classic 4, 503 Rotax, 3:1, 72" Warp 2 blade square tip. Cruise at 5800 RPM is
85 mph true AS. Climb is 750 ft/min at 1500' DA and 780 pounds gross.
--------
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=247941#247941
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: Bungee gear limit cables (was) Re: model 5 gear pictures |
BJ, thanks for the report.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: <bjones@dmv.com>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Bungee gear limit cables (was) Re: model 5 gear
pictures
>
> Lowel
>
> I have heard about three failures of relatively NEW bungees in Kitfox
> installations. In one instance the gear safety cable failed after the
> bungee
> failed. The result was a ground loop and wing damage.
>
> Apparently there was no structural damage caused by the safety cables in
> those
> three cases although we have heard of it in other cases.
>
> I don't know what caused the bungee failures but suspect fraying,
> installation
> error or bungee end failure.
>
> If there is a moral here, it may be that Murphy can show up in a variety
> of "unexpected" ways in addition to the expected hard landing and in
> bungee
> failures not caused by hard landings the safety cables could be valuable.
>
> As an aside, I too installed longer cables during my last bungee
> replacement.
>
> BJ
> N154K N626NR
> bjones@dmv.com
> 443-480-1023
>
>
> Quoting Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>:
>
>>
>> Hi Bob,
>>
>> What advice are you having trouble with? I stated a fact - I do have
>> friends that removed the limit cables - and then made a suggestion.
>>
>> For the Limit Cable fans, I did some research and made a drawing or two
>> and
>> made some calculations.
>> First, Mil-C-5651D Load Specifications for our Type III Bungee cord call
>> for a load range at 100% elongation of between 90 lbs. and 150 lbs. A
>> minimum stretch at 140% and an ultimate breaking load of 300 lbs. For
>> those
>> concerned with the 300 lbs, remember that we have six turns and 12
>> lengths
>> of bungee supporting our landing gear.
>>
>> Using the drawings, it appears that a stretch of 140% would drop the
>> height
>> of the fuselage at the gear, about 7" or maybe 9" at the prop in the
>> three
>> point or the original 7" wheel landing. (It has been a long time since I
>> had
>>
>> a Model IV on the original bungee gear, but pictures I have of numarous
>> airplanes show the ground clearance in the three point to be well over
>> half
>> a prop blade length.)
>>
>> Given a load at the100% stretch to be at the low end - 90 lbs multiplied
>> by
>> 12 would be 1080 lbs. Per gear leg or close to 2 Gs if all the max gross
>> wt.
>>
>> was on the mains. This would result in a bungee cord drop of about 3
>> inches
>>
>> or a nose drop of about five inches. (Mayabe this is where the manual
>> illustration measurement comes from - see below). Calculating at the
>> high
>> end of 150 lbs. the 100% stretch load would be 1800 lbs. at max gross and
>> all weight on the mains or 3Gs. to get the same drop. It is likely that
>> the
>>
>> bungees we have - if relatively fresh would give a load somewhere between
>> these figures.
>>
>> Most of this stuff is meaningless except regarding the length of the
>> limit
>> cables. The manual - my manual - calls for a length of 4.5 to 5 inches.
>> The
>> drawing shows 3 inches. The drop at the bungees at the 140" stretch would
>> be
>>
>> closer to six inches. If your limit cables are in the 4.5 to 5 inch
>> range,
>> or worse yet, installed at the 3 inches in the drawing, you are cutting
>> the
>> bungees effective spring action to a fraction of what it is designed to
>> handle and the sudden stop of "spring" movement focused on the bungee
>> bulkhead has in the past and likely will in the future, cause damage to
>> the
>> most difficult to repair structural element.
>>
>> I mentioned that some have removed the limit cables. I don't recall
>> recommending that as was asserted, but I did recommend lengthening them.
>> Frankly with a little bit of effort, I think I can now fairly safely
>> suggest
>>
>> that removing them would result in minimal risk to the prop, but can't
>> say
>> much about the wing tips if someone manages to put 3gs of force on one
>> gear
>> leg, but I think I would strongly recommend that they be long enough to
>> allow for at least six inches of downward movement of the bungee
>> attachment
>> tube. If someone else wants to do the work and comes up with different
>> numbers, I am willing to listen.
>>
>> Better landings? Definitely good advice.
>>
>> Lowell Fitt
>> Cameron Park, CA
>> Model IV-1200 R-912 UL
>> Covering.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "AKFLYERBOB" <r.wolfejr@worldnet.att.net>
>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:31 AM
>> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: model 5 gear pictures
>>
>>
>> > <r.wolfejr@worldnet.att.net>
>> >
>> > Thats bad advice
>> > The cables are to keep the prop and "WING" from hitting
>> > the ground. Even with broken bungees and bent gear
>> > you can still fly home on the safety cable.
>> > What should be eliminated is the HARD LANDINGS if possible.
>> > Bob
>> >
>> > --------
>> > Bob Wolfe..Soldotna, Alaska
>> > KF Mod I and III
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Read this topic online here:
>> >
>> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247687#247687
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using Delmarva Online's Webmail.
> http://www.delmarvaonline.com/
>
>
>
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 |
|
Can anyone tell me where the get their bush gear? Is the bush gear wider
than the grove gear? I would like to switch to 7 ft gear from the normal
Avid gear. Has anyone rebuilt their normal gear to a wider bush gear?
Harry Cieslar, Avid Magnum Builder, Goderich, Ontario
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: Bungee gear limit cables (was) Re: model 5 gear pictures |
Hi Lowell
I didn't mean to imply you were giving bad advice, just that
leaving off the safety cables is bad advice.
To leave them off it to subject the machine to more damage
than with them.
I once sheared a gear off a Tcraft with out any other damage,
hit a hidden object same color as the grass, wing did drag.
Is not always the cable doing the damage to the structure, often its the rearward
force at or on a hard or sudden landing, such as my hidden
rock, inducing a twist. I also broke the bungees hitting s snow drift I couldn't
see but flew a couple 100 miles home on the cable.
My mod 1 has a slightly twisted bungee structure from such a
force but nothing downward, previous owner incident.
Depends on how the plane is used, up here no one would leave them off.
Bob
--------
Bob Wolfe..Soldotna, Alaska
KF Mod I and III
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247951#247951
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What gear ratio are you running? |
At 07:27 AM 6/13/2009, you wrote:
>For the guys still loving the smell of 2 stroke smoke, what gear
>ratio and prop are you running?
Kitfox IV-1200, 582 grey, 3:1, 70" Warp 3 blade "constant speed",
6800rpm WOT @ 4500' density altitude @about 105 mph, very roughly
6000rpm WOT ground static at 1500'. I've been told my plane's fast
for a 582. It's pretty clean, aerodynamically.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 300 hrs. and counting
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: model 5 gear pictures |
Good topic. Actually, I think I would have to lean toward Lowell on this.
Bob, I'm sure up in the far north where you are, having to walk out is not
an option and I understand your priority with the limit cables. However, I
saw photos of what those cables did to a guy's airplane and it was, IMO,
much worse than a dinged prop or wing tip and I removed mine after that.
That bulkhead is a pretty complex piece to replace and I sure wouldn't want
to be faced with that after just making a hard landing.
Additionally, I don't think that was the purpose of the cables anyway. As I
recall they were recommended to limit the travel of the gear if the
bungie(s) were to let go. A hard landing would have to be "extremely" hard
to spread the gear out enough to cause any sort of prop damage. A landing
that hard would almost certainly cause other serious problems too.
As Lowell said, if keeping them is important, then lengthen them enough so a
hard landing won't ever reach the limit point and give yourself peace of
mind that they will save you if a bungie breaks.
I won't go on about practicing landings because pretty much everyone makes a
crappy one occasionally no matter how good they are. One thing that one
does have control over is the quality of the bungies, how tight they are,
and how often they are replaced.
Also taking Leni's advice and moving the cables to a more robust part of the
bulkhead would give a longer travel and a lesser chance of causing damage.
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 417+ TT
"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress."
- Joseph Joubert
----- Original Message -----
From: "AKFLYERBOB" <r.wolfejr@worldnet.att.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:31 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: model 5 gear pictures
> <r.wolfejr@worldnet.att.net>
>
> Thats bad advice
> The cables are to keep the prop and "WING" from hitting
> the ground. Even with broken bungees and bent gear
> you can still fly home on the safety cable.
> What should be eliminated is the HARD LANDINGS if possible.
> Bob
>
> --------
> Bob Wolfe..Soldotna, Alaska
> KF Mod I and III
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247687#247687
>
>
>
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 |
|
I was flying my plane last weekend. I noticed I had a lot of radio noise. was flying
with two other planes. They said radio transmission was garbled. I started
experimenting turning off electronic things one at a time. Found out my GPS
was the culprit. A Garmin 195. My radio is a Icom IC-A22. Anyone have any suggestions?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247978#247978
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 |
|
In a message dated 6/13/2009 5:23:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
n3pupnc@aol.com writes:
I was flying my plane last weekend. I noticed I had a lot of radio noise.
was flying with two other planes. They said radio transmission was garbled.
I started experimenting turning off electronic things one at a time. Found
out my GPS was the culprit. A Garmin 195. My radio is a Icom IC-A22.
Anyone have any suggestions?
Hello 369PL,
I'll give you some ideas on what to take a look at. I will assume your
avionics package was working well together at some point and now there are
noise problems. Radio noise or interference comes into your radio from one
of two sources, the antenna or the power supply.
As an avionics tech I know to tell you to always look at the power supply
first. Get a digital volt meter from Radio Shack or from your local Lowes
or home store. An expensive one is not necessary. Measure the voltage of
your battery with the volt meter. Do this with the meter leads connected
directly across the battery posts first, not the battery terminals but, the
battery posts. A good reading with a fully charged battery is 12.5 to 13
VDC. Poor (corroded) battery terminal connections or a weak or bad battery
could very likely be your whole problem.
Then, read the battery voltage with the engine running and the alternator
online. Check the reading at several engine RPMs. You want to see the
voltage remain consistent at about 13.8 to 14.0 VDC. Now read those voltages
with the negative lead of the meter connected to the ship's ground (a good
bare metal point on the fuselage) and the positive lead connected to the
positive battery post. Use the engine block for the negative meter lead
point next. What you are looking for is consistent voltage readings that will
indicate that your ship is well bonded to the negative side of the battery.
Next read the voltage with the negative meter lead connected to your
avionics common ground point or negative power bus. Read the voltage with the
positive meter lead connected to the avionics positive power bus and the
negative lead connected to the negative bus point and then check it with the
negative lead connected to the battery negative post and then to the fuselage
bare ground point. These reading should all be the same.
Read the voltage from the negative post of the battery to the bare fuselage
ground point and next from the negative post of the battery to the engine
block. This reading is made with either meter lead connected. Meter lead
polarity is not a concern here, what you are checking for is to see that no
voltage is measured between the negative post of the battery and any
ground point. Ground bonding is very important and this reading is proof of
it's integrity.
Finally, read the voltage with the positive meter lead connected to your
radio's power connection point and the negative lead connected to the battery
negative post and then to ground.
This reading could have been done first and would tell us a lot but, I just
wanted you to be sure of all of your power system's critical readings
first. The radio needs to see a solid 12.5 to 13.8 voltage measured across
it's power input to be able to perform well and it needs to be well grounded.
Take this reading with the radio keyed also and with the engine running
at different RPMs.
Repeat these readings for the GPS receiver too. It is very likely that
you have a poor ground for the GPS receiver or your radio.
Another approach is to do a blind "TEST AND SEE": Connect a jumper wire
from the negative battery post to the chassis of your radio and next to your
GPS's chassis. If the noise goes away, you will know the problem is
improper grounding.
If the GPS receiver is not grounded well, it will become a source for radio
interference noise that gets "received" by your radio's antenna input
circuits. The same grounding problem for the radio can cause the radio
receiver to "see" signals that are not really there because it's improper
grounding makes it detect "ghost" signals. The radio needs a solid signal
reference ground and a solid power ground to do it's thing well.
This has ended up being a bit long so check these readings out and then I
can suggest some other things to look at. You could just simply have a bad
GPS receiver too!
John
John P. Marzluf
Columbus, OHio
Outback (out back in the garage)
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
JunestepsfooterNO62)
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 |
|
A while back I rearanged things on the panel and had the GPS next to my han
dheld radio. I noticed noise on the radio also which quit if I shut the GP
S off. Ended up moving the handheld over to my left which put them about 2
' apart and the noise went away. Might be worth a try to get some distance
between them. Take care=2C Jim Chuk Avids=2C Kitfox. Mn
> Subject: Kitfox-List: radio noise
> From: n3pupnc@aol.com
> Date: Sat=2C 13 Jun 2009 14:21:51 -0700
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>
>
> I was flying my plane last weekend. I noticed I had a lot of radio noise.
was flying with two other planes. They said radio transmission was garbled
. I started experimenting turning off electronic things one at a time. Foun
d out my GPS was the culprit. A Garmin 195. My radio is a Icom IC-A22. Anyo
ne have any suggestions?
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247978#247978
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that=92s right for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290
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 |
|
> From: 369PL [n3pupnc@aol.com]
> Found out my GPS was the culprit. A Garmin 195. My radio is a Icom IC-A22.
And this is why we are asked to switch off all electronic instruments as we board
an airliner. The GPS is only a receiver and shouldn't produce any radio frequency
interferences. But any receiver with a malfunction can work as a sender.
By the way, I was wondering: Does your GPS have a Bluetooth port? Perhaps that's
the problem. If so, can you disable it?
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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! --
|