---------------------------------------------------------- Seaplane-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 09/14/06: 7 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 09:03 AM - Re: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on LSAs on floats (Paul Seehafer) 2. 09:23 AM - Re: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on LSAs on floats (Paul Seehafer) 3. 12:19 PM - Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on LSAs on floats (Chris In Madison) 4. 05:14 PM - Re: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on LSAs on floats (Noel Loveys) 5. 05:42 PM - Re: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on LSAs on floats (Noel Loveys) 6. 05:55 PM - Re: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on LSAs on floats (Noel Loveys) 7. 06:53 PM - Re: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on LSAs on floats (shorty) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 09:03:28 AM PST US From: "Paul Seehafer" Subject: Re: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on LSAs on floats Noel, I'm surprised you'd find the Supercub that much better performer off water compared to a Kitfox. Not that a Supercub with 160 hp is any slouch, as it is a marvelous seaplane. But my little 80 hp amphib kitfox will break water in 8 seconds with 2 hours of fuel on board and me, whereas a 180 hp amphib Supercub can't come close to that (amphib vs. amphib comparison) I know this factually as one of my friends has one of the nicest amphib Supercubs on the planet. A Husky would be a better comparison to the Fox in my opinion, but takeoff I'm confident the Kitfox would still win if the aircraft are flown light. Now, if you load both airplanes up with weight, horsepower and large wings will win, thereby giving the Husky the advantage. But give me a 100 hp 912, or a 115 hp 914 in my Fox, and I'm confident I would turn the tables. I have some videos I need to get posted for you guys on the kitfox/lazair site. I have a Avid on floats doing a takeoff contest against a Challenger, and a Kitfox against an extremely light 90 hp Cub. Both are pretty convincing of the Light Sport Aircrafts potential as performers. Fwiw - still the record holder for off the water takeoff is an Avid Flyer on straight floats.....2.7 seconds from standing still to lift off. You won't find many airplanes that can do that on pavement. I guess you can all tell I am biased towards the Avid/Kitfox/ and Highlander, as they are all derivatives of the original Dean Wilson Avid Flyer. And man do they perform. After 1300 hours of float time in Avids and Foxes, I can tell you that you can't find a better performing, more versatile, capable, and economical seaplane. And the best part is thats they are just a hoooooot to fly! When was the last time you watched someone do a circular takeoff with a float plane...on one float? With the Avid and Kitfox they are so nimble on controls that doing so is not difficult, assuming you are familiar with your airplane. And talk about versatile; my little Model IV Kitfox on Amphibs with a 80 hp 912 rotax can fly alongside of any Supercub. In fact, I have to slow down so they can keep up when at cruise. My Kitfox is much more compatible in cruise flight to an Aviat Husky seaplane, even though they have 180 hp and a constant speed prop (and cost about 6 times the money of the fox). Ok, ok, probably a little hard to believe. So if my picture goes through, here is a panel shot from in my 80 hp Kitfox amphib that says it all. Just check out my gps mph reading in the middle of the panel, my indicated airspeed, my altitude, and my rpm on the right side of the panel. You will notice this little seaplane is VERY capable for cross country work, as well as for small lakes and airports. (incidentally, 5800 rpm is max power on a 912. Also, I more typically fly around at 4900-5000 rpm giving me right around 100 mph tas while burning all of 3.5 gph of regular unleaded auto fuel) I'm not trying to knock anyone elses seaplane here. As personally, I've never met an airplane I didn't like. But my preference is an Avid and Kitfox. Not because I'm biased and close minded toward other aircraft, but because I know how well the Avid and Kitfox work, both as land planes and seaplanes. So for those of you looking for an economical alternative, the Avid and Kitfox choice is a very good one in my opinion. And there are a lot of good used airplanes around, as well as kits from the manufacturers Kitfox, Just Aircraft co. (Highlander), and Airdale (for the Avid). Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 5:43 PM Subject: RE: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on LSAs on floats > --> Seaplane-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" > > Shorty: > > I did some time in a PA 18 Super Cub last week.......finally got most of > the > time for the endorsement. Wow what a ride... 160 Hp gets the lead off the > water real fast. Having the instructor in the rear seat was perfect. > Most > of the time I was hardly aware he was there. There wasn't the same > pressure > as having an instructor sitting beside you. The plane itself behaved like > a > 'fox on a mega dose of steroids. Landing speed was a bit higher but it > seemed to drop off step very fast..... As for getting up on step 160 Hp > says > it all! One notch of flaps was like throwing the hook (anchor) overboard. > > Noel > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-seaplane-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-seaplane-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of shorty >> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 5:15 PM >> To: seaplane-list@matronics.com >> Subject: Re: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on >> LSAs on floats >> >> >> --> Seaplane-List message posted by: "shorty" >> >> Good site here on Challengers. http://challenger.ca/ >> >> I am not a Challenger owner , but I will say that they have a >> great group of >> owners that help each other out. >> >> That Site has a few videos that compare the 503 and 582 Challenger on >> Floats. really shows you why a 582 is so popular although the >> 503 isa great >> engine. >> >> >> Kitfox or Avid on floats is hard to Beat. Cruise in a side >> by side cabin >> on Amphibs from 80 to 110 mph with ease depending on the >> engine a 582 or >> 912 is my comparison. >> >> >> Shorty >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Chris In Madison" >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:30 PM >> Subject: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on LSAs on floats >> >> >> > --> Seaplane-List message posted by: "Chris In Madison" >> >> > >> > Hi John, >> > >> > You're the second person who's mentioned the Challenger >> aircraft to me. >> > Our kids' sitter's husband's father (yeah, I know...) is a >> Challenger >> > dealer out here in Waunakee (or is it Madison). He tells >> me it's loads of >> > fun to fly them as well. If two people say so, it must be true :-) >> > >> > I briefly looked at a couple of web sites that sell the >> Challenger, but >> > they were so horrible that I couldn't get a decent look at >> one. Perhaps >> > I'll try to get a closer look at one from the father-in-law, who's >> > apparently been selling them for a long time out here. >> > >> > I might have to drop by the next time I'm up in your neck >> of the woods, so >> > to speak. Thanks for the info :-) >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Chris >> > >> > -------- >> > Chris Owens >> > Waunakee, WI >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Read this topic online here: >> > >> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=59678#59678 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 09:23:16 AM PST US From: "Paul Seehafer" Subject: Re: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on LSAs on floats Hi Chris, Glad you enjoyed the article. I'll be doing more in the future. I'm also glad you enjoyed EAA's seaplane base. It is in my opinion EAA's crown jewel. Not big, but very high quality and extra special. It has introduced most of us to the wonderful world of seaplanes. Keep dreaming and one day you will find yourself owning one. Metal airplanes vs tube and fabric....hmmmmm. Well, here's my two cents on that. If you look at race cars hitting walls at 150 mph, notice what they are in. Chromoly steel tube frames. Thats because they are light and can handle loads better pound for pound. So a tube and fabric airplane is much the same. Look at some of our most famous airplanes (cub, taylorcraft, stinson, waco, stearman, etc, etc) that have been around the longest. They have held up very well over the decades. Not that modern day Cessnas and Pipers haven't, but aluminum is more subject to metal fatigue than would be the steel tube frame. I fly a lake amphibian as well as my Kitfox. The lake is built like a tank compared to a Cessna. Yet it has had a lot of fatigue cracks that had to be patched due to water operations causing excessive metal fatigue. And the airplane only has a little more than 2000 hours on it. Imagine what it will look like when it hits 20,000 hours like a lot of old J-3's have probably endured? Don't get me wrong, I love my old aluminum lake amphib. But if I had to crash in one or the other, I'd prefer to be in my tube and fabric airplane. Aluminum just doesn't have it when it comes to hitting the wall... Keep your dream alive to one day own a seaplane. It's really not as expensive as you may think. Paul ps - here's a pic of a few airplanes doing a stop on one of the lakes we used for our poker run at the Eagle River Wisconsin Seaplane Fly In this last weekend. The photo represents about 1/2 of the airplanes in the poker run. The Highlander amphib is in the foreground with my Kitfox amphib next to it. This ought to get your heart pumping! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris In Madison" Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 8:40 AM Subject: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on LSAs on floats > --> Seaplane-List message posted by: "Chris In Madison" > > Hi Paul, > > Thanks for the great article. I had never given floatplanes any thought > until recently. I don't remember what made me think more seriously about > them, but it may have been the video for the Murphy Moose that I received > with a product information kit earlier this year. I went to Oshkosh for > the first time this year and saw a Beaver on amphibious floats, then took > a trip over to the seaplane base. After that, I was completely hooked. I > now realize that I want to be on floats when I grow up. Now I just need > to see if I'll ever be able to afford to fly in that capacity! > > I've never really taken a serious look at a fabric-covered aircraft. I > always assumed that an all-metal plane was a better option. Perhaps I > need to take another look at them, especially for all the reasons you > described in your article. > > Thanks again for the great read :-) > > Best regards, > Chris > > -------- > Chris Owens > Waunakee, WI > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=59591#59591 > > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 12:19:01 PM PST US Subject: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on LSAs on floats From: "Chris In Madison" --> Seaplane-List message posted by: "Chris In Madison" Hi Paul, Thanks for the follow up. I'm happy to hear a good description of tube and fabric aircraft and how they compare to metal craft. I can't say that I've spent a lot of time researching the differences/advantages/disadvantages between them, but now I've got some incentive to do some more :-) Al Barger is the president of our EAA chapter (and a friend of yours, I believe) and he had a lot of really great things to say about the Highlander. I'll have to see if I can find some more info on it beyond what's on Just's web site. It's a very attractive plane, and your article definitely touts its positive aspects. I'm sure Al doesn't mind talking about seaplanes since his wife works at the seaplane base :-) I'd love to have a 4-seat aircraft to haul the family around in, but I'm a little scared how much insurance is going to be on a 4-seater with enough capacity that can live on floats as well (thinking Murphy Moose on the big side; Tundra, Yukon, or Bush Caddy L-164 the next size down). I reckon I've still got some time to think about it, though. Is a Seaplane Pilots Association membership worth the investment? Is that a good place to get more background information on the subject? Thanks again for taking the time to write. I find myself reading your article over and over. Feel free to write more of them! Best regards, Chris -------- Chris Owens Waunakee, WI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=61633#61633 ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 05:14:27 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on LSAs on floats --> Seaplane-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" Paul this cub was on straight 200 floats...around half tanks and beside myself and the instructor for the float endorsement there wasn't much else on board. I saw a few of the places that plane had been into and to say it must have been tight would be an understatement. The Super cub was a great diversion. Just having the horsepower under your thumb! It took a bit of getting used to flying with the wrong hand ( I'm a south paw) I don't think I'm going to try to get into one of the "bog holes" in my fox any time soon. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-seaplane-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-seaplane-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Paul Seehafer > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:30 PM > To: seaplane-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on > LSAs on floats > > > Noel, > > I'm surprised you'd find the Supercub that much better > performer off water > compared to a Kitfox. Not that a Supercub with 160 hp is any > slouch, as it > is a marvelous seaplane. But my little 80 hp amphib kitfox > will break water > in 8 seconds with 2 hours of fuel on board and me, whereas a > 180 hp amphib > Supercub can't come close to that (amphib vs. amphib > comparison) I know > this factually as one of my friends has one of the nicest > amphib Supercubs > on the planet. A Husky would be a better comparison to the Fox in my > opinion, but takeoff I'm confident the Kitfox would still win if the > aircraft are flown light. Now, if you load both airplanes up > with weight, > horsepower and large wings will win, thereby giving the Husky > the advantage. > But give me a 100 hp 912, or a 115 hp 914 in my Fox, and I'm > confident I > would turn the tables. > > I have some videos I need to get posted for you guys on the > kitfox/lazair > site. I have a Avid on floats doing a takeoff contest > against a Challenger, > and a Kitfox against an extremely light 90 hp Cub. Both are pretty > convincing of the Light Sport Aircrafts potential as > performers. Fwiw - > still the record holder for off the water takeoff is an Avid Flyer on > straight floats.....2.7 seconds from standing still to lift > off. You won't > find many airplanes that can do that on pavement. I guess > you can all tell > I am biased towards the Avid/Kitfox/ and Highlander, as they are all > derivatives of the original Dean Wilson Avid Flyer. And man do they > perform. After 1300 hours of float time in Avids and Foxes, > I can tell you > that you can't find a better performing, more versatile, capable, and > economical seaplane. And the best part is thats they are > just a hoooooot to > fly! When was the last time you watched someone do a > circular takeoff with > a float plane...on one float? With the Avid and Kitfox they > are so nimble > on controls that doing so is not difficult, assuming you are > familiar with > your airplane. And talk about versatile; my little Model IV > Kitfox on > Amphibs with a 80 hp 912 rotax can fly alongside of any > Supercub. In fact, > I have to slow down so they can keep up when at cruise. My > Kitfox is much > more compatible in cruise flight to an Aviat Husky seaplane, > even though > they have 180 hp and a constant speed prop (and cost about 6 > times the money > of the fox). > > Ok, ok, probably a little hard to believe. So if my picture > goes through, > here is a panel shot from in my 80 hp Kitfox amphib that says > it all. Just > check out my gps mph reading in the middle of the panel, my indicated > airspeed, my altitude, and my rpm on the right side of the > panel. You will > notice this little seaplane is VERY capable for cross country > work, as well > as for small lakes and airports. (incidentally, 5800 rpm is > max power on a > 912. Also, I more typically fly around at 4900-5000 rpm > giving me right > around 100 mph tas while burning all of 3.5 gph of regular > unleaded auto > fuel) > > I'm not trying to knock anyone elses seaplane here. As > personally, I've > never met an airplane I didn't like. But my preference is an > Avid and > Kitfox. Not because I'm biased and close minded toward other > aircraft, but > because I know how well the Avid and Kitfox work, both as > land planes and > seaplanes. So for those of you looking for an economical > alternative, the > Avid and Kitfox choice is a very good one in my opinion. And > there are a > lot of good used airplanes around, as well as kits from the > manufacturers > Kitfox, Just Aircraft co. (Highlander), and Airdale (for the Avid). > > Paul > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Noel Loveys" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 5:43 PM > Subject: RE: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on > LSAs on floats > > > > --> Seaplane-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" > > > > > Shorty: > > > > I did some time in a PA 18 Super Cub last > week.......finally got most of > > the > > time for the endorsement. Wow what a ride... 160 Hp gets > the lead off the > > water real fast. Having the instructor in the rear seat > was perfect. > > Most > > of the time I was hardly aware he was there. There wasn't the same > > pressure > > as having an instructor sitting beside you. The plane > itself behaved like > > a > > 'fox on a mega dose of steroids. Landing speed was a bit > higher but it > > seemed to drop off step very fast..... As for getting up on > step 160 Hp > > says > > it all! One notch of flaps was like throwing the hook > (anchor) overboard. > > > > Noel > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-seaplane-list-server@matronics.com > >> [mailto:owner-seaplane-list-server@matronics.com] On > Behalf Of shorty > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 5:15 PM > >> To: seaplane-list@matronics.com > >> Subject: Re: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on > >> LSAs on floats > >> > >> > >> --> Seaplane-List message posted by: "shorty" > > >> > >> Good site here on Challengers. http://challenger.ca/ > >> > >> I am not a Challenger owner , but I will say that they have a > >> great group of > >> owners that help each other out. > >> > >> That Site has a few videos that compare the 503 and 582 > Challenger on > >> Floats. really shows you why a 582 is so popular although the > >> 503 isa great > >> engine. > >> > >> > >> Kitfox or Avid on floats is hard to Beat. Cruise in a side > >> by side cabin > >> on Amphibs from 80 to 110 mph with ease depending on the > >> engine a 582 or > >> 912 is my comparison. > >> > >> > >> Shorty > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Chris In Madison" > >> To: > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:30 PM > >> Subject: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on > LSAs on floats > >> > >> > >> > --> Seaplane-List message posted by: "Chris In Madison" > >> > >> > > >> > Hi John, > >> > > >> > You're the second person who's mentioned the Challenger > >> aircraft to me. > >> > Our kids' sitter's husband's father (yeah, I know...) is a > >> Challenger > >> > dealer out here in Waunakee (or is it Madison). He tells > >> me it's loads of > >> > fun to fly them as well. If two people say so, it must > be true :-) > >> > > >> > I briefly looked at a couple of web sites that sell the > >> Challenger, but > >> > they were so horrible that I couldn't get a decent look at > >> one. Perhaps > >> > I'll try to get a closer look at one from the > father-in-law, who's > >> > apparently been selling them for a long time out here. > >> > > >> > I might have to drop by the next time I'm up in your neck > >> of the woods, so > >> > to speak. Thanks for the info :-) > >> > > >> > Best regards, > >> > Chris > >> > > >> > -------- > >> > Chris Owens > >> > Waunakee, WI > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Read this topic online here: > >> > > >> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=59678#59678 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 05:42:41 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on LSAs on floats I know, I know! The plane needs to be in the water. Had a little boo boo Tuesday. I brought the plane up to the pond to do a bit of work on my float endorsement. Just before launching I did a walk around and found that when I put the plane in the garage the last time I had bent the B#$% out of the rudder. I brought it home and stripped the top of the rudder, straightened the tubing, made one weld at the top of the main tube and recovered the top half of the rudder. Unfortunately I don't have any Insignia white Polytone so I gave the refinished area a coat of clear lacquer over the Polyspray. It's solid enough but doesn't look the way it should..... More cloth and Insignia white are on their way as I hunt and peck (I wouldn't dare to call it typing). Noel Model III-A 582-UL "B"box three blade Ivo in-flight adjustable. Aerocet 1100 Straight floats > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-seaplane-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-seaplane-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Paul Seehafer > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:49 PM > To: seaplane-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on > LSAs on floats > > > Hi Chris, > > Glad you enjoyed the article. I'll be doing more in the future. > > I'm also glad you enjoyed EAA's seaplane base. It is in my > opinion EAA's > crown jewel. Not big, but very high quality and extra > special. It has > introduced most of us to the wonderful world of seaplanes. > Keep dreaming > and one day you will find yourself owning one. > > Metal airplanes vs tube and fabric....hmmmmm. Well, here's > my two cents on > that. If you look at race cars hitting walls at 150 mph, > notice what they > are in. Chromoly steel tube frames. Thats because they are > light and can > handle loads better pound for pound. So a tube and fabric > airplane is much > the same. Look at some of our most famous airplanes (cub, > taylorcraft, > stinson, waco, stearman, etc, etc) that have been around the > longest. They > have held up very well over the decades. Not that modern day > Cessnas and > Pipers haven't, but aluminum is more subject to metal fatigue > than would be > the steel tube frame. I fly a lake amphibian as well as my > Kitfox. The > lake is built like a tank compared to a Cessna. Yet it has > had a lot of > fatigue cracks that had to be patched due to water operations causing > excessive metal fatigue. And the airplane only has a little > more than 2000 > hours on it. Imagine what it will look like when it hits > 20,000 hours like > a lot of old J-3's have probably endured? Don't get me > wrong, I love my old > aluminum lake amphib. But if I had to crash in one or the > other, I'd prefer > to be in my tube and fabric airplane. Aluminum just doesn't > have it when it > comes to hitting the wall... > > Keep your dream alive to one day own a seaplane. It's really not as > expensive as you may think. > > Paul > > ps - here's a pic of a few airplanes doing a stop on one of > the lakes we > used for our poker run at the Eagle River Wisconsin Seaplane > Fly In this > last weekend. The photo represents about 1/2 of the > airplanes in the poker > run. The Highlander amphib is in the foreground with my > Kitfox amphib next > to it. This ought to get your heart pumping! > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris In Madison" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 8:40 AM > Subject: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on LSAs on floats > > > > --> Seaplane-List message posted by: "Chris In Madison" > > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > Thanks for the great article. I had never given > floatplanes any thought > > until recently. I don't remember what made me think more > seriously about > > them, but it may have been the video for the Murphy Moose > that I received > > with a product information kit earlier this year. I went > to Oshkosh for > > the first time this year and saw a Beaver on amphibious > floats, then took > > a trip over to the seaplane base. After that, I was > completely hooked. I > > now realize that I want to be on floats when I grow up. > Now I just need > > to see if I'll ever be able to afford to fly in that capacity! > > > > I've never really taken a serious look at a fabric-covered > aircraft. I > > always assumed that an all-metal plane was a better option. > Perhaps I > > need to take another look at them, especially for all the > reasons you > > described in your article. > > > > Thanks again for the great read :-) > > > > Best regards, > > Chris > > > > -------- > > Chris Owens > > Waunakee, WI > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=59591#59591 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 05:55:22 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on LSAs on floats --> Seaplane-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" BTW I'm with you on the tube planes. A couple of years ago I had to do some work on a Super Cub that flew in from BC (British Columbia) with the tail bent to a ridiculous angle. We had to resection longerons and replace a fair bit of the welds in the tail of the plane. My point is if it had been a Cessna it would never have made the first ten feet of the trans continental flight. Monocoque construction doesn't like dents let alone bends. The ferry pilot said he didn't notice the defect in the tail at all. Another reason to be very careful when having your plane ferried. I have it on good authority when the plane left BC it was in perfect condition. Re: your Lake. For quite a few years I beat all over this island in my fathers Lake LA-4. Quite the lovely plane but..... Darn there always has to be a but... But.... With that plane you have to be very careful that the front gear doors are closing completely before going for a swim. To do this hold the main gear locked with Vise grips and tie the tail down while doing a retract. The gear must be able to fully retract and still close the doors fully. I remember on time hitting a wake and having water short out our com radio for several days. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-seaplane-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-seaplane-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Paul Seehafer > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:49 PM > To: seaplane-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on > LSAs on floats > > > Hi Chris, > > Glad you enjoyed the article. I'll be doing more in the future. > > I'm also glad you enjoyed EAA's seaplane base. It is in my > opinion EAA's > crown jewel. Not big, but very high quality and extra > special. It has > introduced most of us to the wonderful world of seaplanes. > Keep dreaming > and one day you will find yourself owning one. > > Metal airplanes vs tube and fabric....hmmmmm. Well, here's > my two cents on > that. If you look at race cars hitting walls at 150 mph, > notice what they > are in. Chromoly steel tube frames. Thats because they are > light and can > handle loads better pound for pound. So a tube and fabric > airplane is much > the same. Look at some of our most famous airplanes (cub, > taylorcraft, > stinson, waco, stearman, etc, etc) that have been around the > longest. They > have held up very well over the decades. Not that modern day > Cessnas and > Pipers haven't, but aluminum is more subject to metal fatigue > than would be > the steel tube frame. I fly a lake amphibian as well as my > Kitfox. The > lake is built like a tank compared to a Cessna. Yet it has > had a lot of > fatigue cracks that had to be patched due to water operations causing > excessive metal fatigue. And the airplane only has a little > more than 2000 > hours on it. Imagine what it will look like when it hits > 20,000 hours like > a lot of old J-3's have probably endured? Don't get me > wrong, I love my old > aluminum lake amphib. But if I had to crash in one or the > other, I'd prefer > to be in my tube and fabric airplane. Aluminum just doesn't > have it when it > comes to hitting the wall... > > Keep your dream alive to one day own a seaplane. It's really not as > expensive as you may think. > > Paul > > ps - here's a pic of a few airplanes doing a stop on one of > the lakes we > used for our poker run at the Eagle River Wisconsin Seaplane > Fly In this > last weekend. The photo represents about 1/2 of the > airplanes in the poker > run. The Highlander amphib is in the foreground with my > Kitfox amphib next > to it. This ought to get your heart pumping! > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris In Madison" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 8:40 AM > Subject: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on LSAs on floats > > > > --> Seaplane-List message posted by: "Chris In Madison" > > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > Thanks for the great article. I had never given > floatplanes any thought > > until recently. I don't remember what made me think more > seriously about > > them, but it may have been the video for the Murphy Moose > that I received > > with a product information kit earlier this year. I went > to Oshkosh for > > the first time this year and saw a Beaver on amphibious > floats, then took > > a trip over to the seaplane base. After that, I was > completely hooked. I > > now realize that I want to be on floats when I grow up. > Now I just need > > to see if I'll ever be able to afford to fly in that capacity! > > > > I've never really taken a serious look at a fabric-covered > aircraft. I > > always assumed that an all-metal plane was a better option. > Perhaps I > > need to take another look at them, especially for all the > reasons you > > described in your article. > > > > Thanks again for the great read :-) > > > > Best regards, > > Chris > > > > -------- > > Chris Owens > > Waunakee, WI > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=59591#59591 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 06:53:40 PM PST US From: "shorty" Subject: Re: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on LSAs on floats --> Seaplane-List message posted by: "shorty" I will vote for the Kitfox off the water quicker than a Super cub with 160 hp Paul's Kitfox off the water in 8 seconds ? Mine is 100 lbs lighter .............. Muahahahhwwaaaaa you did see the under 4 second take off s on ski right Noel ? :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 8:08 PM Subject: RE: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on LSAs on floats > --> Seaplane-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" > > Paul this cub was on straight 200 floats...around half tanks and beside > myself and the instructor for the float endorsement there wasn't much else > on board. I saw a few of the places that plane had been into and to say > it > must have been tight would be an understatement. > > The Super cub was a great diversion. Just having the horsepower under > your > thumb! It took a bit of getting used to flying with the wrong hand ( I'm > a > south paw) I don't think I'm going to try to get into one of the "bog > holes" in my fox any time soon. > > Noel > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-seaplane-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-seaplane-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf >> Of Paul Seehafer >> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:30 PM >> To: seaplane-list@matronics.com >> Subject: Re: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on >> LSAs on floats >> >> >> Noel, >> >> I'm surprised you'd find the Supercub that much better >> performer off water >> compared to a Kitfox. Not that a Supercub with 160 hp is any >> slouch, as it >> is a marvelous seaplane. But my little 80 hp amphib kitfox >> will break water >> in 8 seconds with 2 hours of fuel on board and me, whereas a >> 180 hp amphib >> Supercub can't come close to that (amphib vs. amphib >> comparison) I know >> this factually as one of my friends has one of the nicest >> amphib Supercubs >> on the planet. A Husky would be a better comparison to the Fox in my >> opinion, but takeoff I'm confident the Kitfox would still win if the >> aircraft are flown light. Now, if you load both airplanes up >> with weight, >> horsepower and large wings will win, thereby giving the Husky >> the advantage. >> But give me a 100 hp 912, or a 115 hp 914 in my Fox, and I'm >> confident I >> would turn the tables. >> >> I have some videos I need to get posted for you guys on the >> kitfox/lazair >> site. I have a Avid on floats doing a takeoff contest >> against a Challenger, >> and a Kitfox against an extremely light 90 hp Cub. Both are pretty >> convincing of the Light Sport Aircrafts potential as >> performers. Fwiw - >> still the record holder for off the water takeoff is an Avid Flyer on >> straight floats.....2.7 seconds from standing still to lift >> off. You won't >> find many airplanes that can do that on pavement. I guess >> you can all tell >> I am biased towards the Avid/Kitfox/ and Highlander, as they are all >> derivatives of the original Dean Wilson Avid Flyer. And man do they >> perform. After 1300 hours of float time in Avids and Foxes, >> I can tell you >> that you can't find a better performing, more versatile, capable, and >> economical seaplane. And the best part is thats they are >> just a hoooooot to >> fly! When was the last time you watched someone do a >> circular takeoff with >> a float plane...on one float? With the Avid and Kitfox they >> are so nimble >> on controls that doing so is not difficult, assuming you are >> familiar with >> your airplane. And talk about versatile; my little Model IV >> Kitfox on >> Amphibs with a 80 hp 912 rotax can fly alongside of any >> Supercub. In fact, >> I have to slow down so they can keep up when at cruise. My >> Kitfox is much >> more compatible in cruise flight to an Aviat Husky seaplane, >> even though >> they have 180 hp and a constant speed prop (and cost about 6 >> times the money >> of the fox). >> >> Ok, ok, probably a little hard to believe. So if my picture >> goes through, >> here is a panel shot from in my 80 hp Kitfox amphib that says >> it all. Just >> check out my gps mph reading in the middle of the panel, my indicated >> airspeed, my altitude, and my rpm on the right side of the >> panel. You will >> notice this little seaplane is VERY capable for cross country >> work, as well >> as for small lakes and airports. (incidentally, 5800 rpm is >> max power on a >> 912. Also, I more typically fly around at 4900-5000 rpm >> giving me right >> around 100 mph tas while burning all of 3.5 gph of regular >> unleaded auto >> fuel) >> >> I'm not trying to knock anyone elses seaplane here. As >> personally, I've >> never met an airplane I didn't like. But my preference is an >> Avid and >> Kitfox. Not because I'm biased and close minded toward other >> aircraft, but >> because I know how well the Avid and Kitfox work, both as >> land planes and >> seaplanes. So for those of you looking for an economical >> alternative, the >> Avid and Kitfox choice is a very good one in my opinion. And >> there are a >> lot of good used airplanes around, as well as kits from the >> manufacturers >> Kitfox, Just Aircraft co. (Highlander), and Airdale (for the Avid). >> >> Paul >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Noel Loveys" >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 5:43 PM >> Subject: RE: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on >> LSAs on floats >> >> >> > --> Seaplane-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" >> >> > >> > Shorty: >> > >> > I did some time in a PA 18 Super Cub last >> week.......finally got most of >> > the >> > time for the endorsement. Wow what a ride... 160 Hp gets >> the lead off the >> > water real fast. Having the instructor in the rear seat >> was perfect. >> > Most >> > of the time I was hardly aware he was there. There wasn't the same >> > pressure >> > as having an instructor sitting beside you. The plane >> itself behaved like >> > a >> > 'fox on a mega dose of steroids. Landing speed was a bit >> higher but it >> > seemed to drop off step very fast..... As for getting up on >> step 160 Hp >> > says >> > it all! One notch of flaps was like throwing the hook >> (anchor) overboard. >> > >> > Noel >> > >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: owner-seaplane-list-server@matronics.com >> >> [mailto:owner-seaplane-list-server@matronics.com] On >> Behalf Of shorty >> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 5:15 PM >> >> To: seaplane-list@matronics.com >> >> Subject: Re: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on >> >> LSAs on floats >> >> >> >> >> >> --> Seaplane-List message posted by: "shorty" >> >> >> >> >> Good site here on Challengers. http://challenger.ca/ >> >> >> >> I am not a Challenger owner , but I will say that they have a >> >> great group of >> >> owners that help each other out. >> >> >> >> That Site has a few videos that compare the 503 and 582 >> Challenger on >> >> Floats. really shows you why a 582 is so popular although the >> >> 503 isa great >> >> engine. >> >> >> >> >> >> Kitfox or Avid on floats is hard to Beat. Cruise in a side >> >> by side cabin >> >> on Amphibs from 80 to 110 mph with ease depending on the >> >> engine a 582 or >> >> 912 is my comparison. >> >> >> >> >> >> Shorty >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Chris In Madison" >> >> To: >> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:30 PM >> >> Subject: Seaplane-List: Re: EAA Sport Pilot article on >> LSAs on floats >> >> >> >> >> >> > --> Seaplane-List message posted by: "Chris In Madison" >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Hi John, >> >> > >> >> > You're the second person who's mentioned the Challenger >> >> aircraft to me. >> >> > Our kids' sitter's husband's father (yeah, I know...) is a >> >> Challenger >> >> > dealer out here in Waunakee (or is it Madison). He tells >> >> me it's loads of >> >> > fun to fly them as well. If two people say so, it must >> be true :-) >> >> > >> >> > I briefly looked at a couple of web sites that sell the >> >> Challenger, but >> >> > they were so horrible that I couldn't get a decent look at >> >> one. Perhaps >> >> > I'll try to get a closer look at one from the >> father-in-law, who's >> >> > apparently been selling them for a long time out here. >> >> > >> >> > I might have to drop by the next time I'm up in your neck >> >> of the woods, so >> >> > to speak. Thanks for the info :-) >> >> > >> >> > Best regards, >> >> > Chris >> >> > >> >> > -------- >> >> > Chris Owens >> >> > Waunakee, WI >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Read this topic online here: >> >> > >> >> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=59678#59678 >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >