Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:07 AM - Re: Hard Landing (rawheels)
2. 09:49 AM - Re: Re: Hard Landing (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
3. 12:56 PM - Stol perf of Larger Kitfoxes w certified engines ? (TURBO T)
4. 01:32 PM - Re: Stol perf of Larger Kitfoxes w certified engines ? (Guy Buchanan)
5. 01:49 PM - Re: Stol perf of Larger Kitfoxes w certified engines ? (Rick Weiss)
6. 02:07 PM - Re: Stol perf of Larger Kitfoxes w certified engines ? (Pete Christensen)
7. 03:41 PM - Re: Stol perf of Larger Kitfoxes w certified engines ? (Michael Gibbs)
8. 06:05 PM - Re: Stol perf of Larger Kitfoxes w certified engines ? (icaza francisco)
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: Hard Landing |
Dick Maddux wrote:
> I am EXTREMELY happy with the "bush gear" ! It requires no maintenance (no
bungees) and was easy to install. Have had it installed for a few years now.
I agree. I installed the Highwing LLC version of the bush gear, and it was the
best modification that I have made to my Kitfox IV. Too bad they no longer produce
Kitfox parts, they were a great group to deal with.
falcon43 wrote:
> Can I use my wheels on the bush gear?
You could with the Highwing LLC version, but as I recall you have to get new axels
with the Kitfox brand version.
--------
Ryan Wheeler
Kitfox IV-1200
Indianapolis, IN
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441670#441670
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: Hard Landing |
To all; the lower longeron and related tubing has been repaired, spiced per
FAA manual and the reassembly began in earnest this morning.
Still deciding on the gear choice.=C2- My experience with the tube gear m
irrors the comments of others; all of them.=C2- The bungee failed on the
right side, trashing the gear.=C2- The left side bungee held, trashing th
e longeron structure at the gear attach points.=C2- Guy's comments are am
ong the few negative comments on the spring gear.
=C2-
Steve's suggestion of a welder proved excellent.=C2- less than two week t
urnaround including shipping of the material.=C2- Thanks again.
=C2-
Also, picked up a referral on someone to do the fiberglass repairs.
=C2-
Will keep you posted.
=C2-
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt3@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2015 8:25:20 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Hard Landing
Yes in the good old days.=C2- My guess is Grove got tired of the free ben
d fixes, now they have switched to 7075 T6 alloy.=C2- It is a much toughe
r alloy and with exactly what ramifications, who knows.=C2- There is no q
uestion, though, that the early Kitfox airframe is not real robust where th
e landing gear attaches.=C2- Maybe that is why the early bungee gear had
such a poor reputation=C2- for folding up in ground loops.=C2- Fix the
droop tip and a new gear - not nearly the challenge of a lower fuselage reb
uild.
Lowell
On May 2, 2015 10:45 PM, "Guy Buchanan" < gebuchanan@cox.net > wrote:
Personally I never liked the way the Grove gear handled on the ground. When
my gear's bottomed out it's very stiff. The Grove gear always kind of wand
ered and the wings rocked a lot more and everything seemed "looser". I gues
s I always liked the more positive feel of the tube gear. I do concede, tho
ugh, that the Grove gear can withstand an amazing amount of abuse. Worst ca
se is that you bend it. Then you send it in and they bend it back for you.
Very convenient.
Guy Buchanan
Ramona, CA
Kitfox IV-1200 / 912-S / Warp 3cs / 500 hrs. and grounded
Now a glider pilot, too.
On 5/2/2015 4:54 PM, "Jos=C3=A9 M. Toro" wrote:
<blockquote>
= <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com> There is a significant difference in the weight
of the Grove landing gear vs the original one. This was my experience...
Jos=C3=A9
Sent from my iPhone
<blockquote>
On May 2, 2015, at 9:57 AM, SkySteve <Wilson@REinfo.org> wrote:
aw your plane yesterday. It's looking real good. You really should put the
Grove gear on it. It makes a world of difference. I put it on my plane and
love it.
--------
Steve Wilson
Huntsville, UT
Kitfox Model 1- 85DD
912A / 3 Blade Warp Drive
Convertible Nosewheel & Tailwheel
Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=
441615#441615
</blockquote>
arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
</blockquote>
===
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: | Stol perf of Larger Kitfoxes w certified engines ? |
What is the general thought on STOL perf of the larger Foxes with "certifie
d" engines ?
Thinking about a Mod 5 Outback with Lyc 0-235=C2-125 HP=C2- , =C2-925
empty weight.
My main need is STOL perf=C2-for rough short field situations,=C2-would
a earlier version with 2 stroke better suit my needs ?
C ruise speed is of little importance as am not wanting to travel long dist
ances , just local exploring. =C2-=C2-=C2-
Purchase price is about double for the Mod 5 compared to earlier versions w
ith 2 strokes.
Any thoughts welcome.
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: Stol perf of Larger Kitfoxes w certified engines ? |
A heavy aircraft with a forward CG is not a recipe for best short field
performance. Nor rough field. (Nose-over?) However, I can say after some
years driving a 582 powered IV that it's also rather limiting at the
higher altitudes short fields are often found. (Great at low altitude,
though.) Perhaps a 582 powered I or II, built very light, would suffice
if you were alone. The very best is a 914 powered IV, since it has the
best power / weight ratio, and best performance at altitude. Can't
honestly say I've ever seen one, though. Best I've seen is the many
100hp 912S powered IV's, and they rock at short field.
Guy Buchanan
Ramona, CA
Kitfox IV-1200 / 912-S / Warp 3cs / 500 hrs. and grounded
Now a glider pilot, too.
On 5/4/2015 12:55 PM, TURBO T wrote:
>
> What is the general thought on STOL perf of the larger Foxes with
> "certified" engines ?
>
> Thinking about a Mod 5 Outback with Lyc 0-235 125 HP , 925 empty weight.
>
> My main need is STOL perf for rough short field situations, would a
> earlier version with 2 stroke better suit my needs ?
>
> Cruise speed is of little importance as am not wanting to travel long
> distances, just local exploring.
>
> Purchase price is about double for the Mod 5 compared to earlier
> versions with 2 strokes.
>
> Any thoughts welcome.
>
>
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: Stol perf of Larger Kitfoxes w certified engines ? |
I can confirm the 912S performs great. I get 1100-1200 fpm on a typical
hot humid day here in central Florida, also 300-400 foot takeoffs are
normal. It=92s powering a Model V Speedster (hah) that cruises about
115. BTW: The Grove gear is trouble free. Fun machine!
Rick Weiss
Spruce Creek, FL
2009 Series V Speedster, 912S/ Warp Drive/ Dynon 10=94 SkyView with all
the extras except touch/ Grove Gear
RV-7A in development
On May 4, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Guy Buchanan <gebuchanan@cox.net> wrote:
> A heavy aircraft with a forward CG is not a recipe for best short
field performance. Nor rough field. (Nose-over?) However, I can say
after some years driving a 582 powered IV that it's also rather limiting
at the higher altitudes short fields are often found. (Great at low
altitude, though.) Perhaps a 582 powered I or II, built very light,
would suffice if you were alone. The very best is a 914 powered IV,
since it has the best power / weight ratio, and best performance at
altitude. Can't honestly say I've ever seen one, though. Best I've seen
is the many 100hp 912S powered IV's, and they rock at short field.
>
> Guy Buchanan
> Ramona, CA
> Kitfox IV-1200 / 912-S / Warp 3cs / 500 hrs. and grounded
> Now a glider pilot, too.
>
>
> On 5/4/2015 12:55 PM, TURBO T wrote:
>> What is the general thought on STOL perf of the larger Foxes with
"certified" engines ?
>>
>> Thinking about a Mod 5 Outback with Lyc 0-235 125 HP , 925 empty
weight.
>>
>> My main need is STOL perf for rough short field situations, would a
earlier version with 2 stroke better suit my needs ?
>> Cruise speed is of little importance as am not wanting to travel long
distances, just local exploring.
>>
>> Purchase price is about double for the Mod 5 compared to earlier
versions with 2 strokes.
>>
>> Any thoughts welcome.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Stol perf of Larger Kitfoxes w certified engines ? |
I fly a Kitfox III with a 912. It's no slouch in the STOL performance. More
than 1000 hrs on the clock.
Pete
Leander, Tx
> On May 4, 2015, at 2:55 PM, TURBO T <turbot@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> What is the general thought on STOL perf of the larger Foxes with "certifi
ed" engines ?
>
>
>
> Thinking about a Mod 5 Outback with Lyc 0-235 125 HP , 925 empty weight.
>
>
>
> My main need is STOL perf for rough short field situations, would a earlie
r version with 2 stroke better suit my needs ?
>
> Cruise speed is of little importance as am not wanting to travel long dist
ances, just local exploring.
>
>
>
> Purchase price is about double for the Mod 5 compared to earlier versions w
ith 2 strokes.
>
>
>
> Any thoughts welcome.
>
>
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
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: Stol perf of Larger Kitfoxes w certified engines ? |
My Model IV-1200 Speedster with 912S could get off the pavement in 125 feet w
ith just me in the plane under ideal conditions.
Mike G.
Phoenix, AZ
Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster, Series 6
> On May 4, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Rick Weiss <mdkitfox@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I can confirm the 912S performs great. I get 1100-1200 fpm on a typical h
ot humid day here in central Florida, also 300-400 foot takeoffs are normal.
It=99s powering a Model V Speedster (hah) that cruises about 115. B
TW: The Grove gear is trouble free. Fun machine!
>
> Rick Weiss
> Spruce Creek, FL
> 2009 Series V Speedster, 912S/ Warp Drive/ Dynon 10=9D SkyView with a
ll the extras except touch/ Grove Gear
> RV-7A in development
>
>
>> On May 4, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Guy Buchanan <gebuchanan@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> A heavy aircraft with a forward CG is not a recipe for best short field p
erformance. Nor rough field. (Nose-over?) However, I can say after some year
s driving a 582 powered IV that it's also rather limiting at the higher alti
tudes short fields are often found. (Great at low altitude, though.) Perhaps
a 582 powered I or II, built very light, would suffice if you were alone. T
he very best is a 914 powered IV, since it has the best power / weight ratio
, and best performance at altitude. Can't honestly say I've ever seen one, t
hough. Best I've seen is the many 100hp 912S powered IV's, and they rock at s
hort field.
>>
>> Guy Buchanan
>> Ramona, CA
>> Kitfox IV-1200 / 912-S / Warp 3cs / 500 hrs. and grounded
>> Now a glider pilot, too.
>>
>>
>>> On 5/4/2015 12:55 PM, TURBO T wrote:
>>> What is the general thought on STOL perf of the larger Foxes with "certi
fied" engines ?
>>>
>>> Thinking about a Mod 5 Outback with Lyc 0-235 125 HP , 925 empty weight
.
>>>
>>> My main need is STOL perf for rough short field situations, would a earl
ier version with 2 stroke better suit my needs ?
>>> Cruise speed is of little importance as am not wanting to travel long di
stances, just local exploring.
>>>
>>> Purchase price is about double for the Mod 5 compared to earlier version
s with 2 strokes.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts welcome.
>>
>>
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
ics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
>>
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
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: Stol perf of Larger Kitfoxes w certified engines ? |
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! --
|