Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Kitfox vs. Van's RV
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

mscotter

Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 49
Location: Winston-Salem, NC

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:28 am Post subject: Kitfox vs. Van's RV

Your statement kind of begs the question.  Are there any Kitfox owners out there who regularly throw in a couple loops or rolls to mix things up?  I know the 'Fox can do these things, I'm just wondering if anyone really does in practice, i.e. do people feel comfortable doing them, are they fun in the Kitfox, etc.

 Mark Scott

 Elkton, MD

  

  	  Quote: 	
		  -------------- Original message -------------- 

From: RRTRACK(at)aol.com 

    ...SNIP...

   "Jimmy's" video of the Kitfox IV speedster shows that model Kitfox doing aerobatics but I would not try it in my long wing Vixen. The wings flex to much and not enough ailerons control for me.

   I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just not comfortable with these things.

  

 There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots!

 I rent a Super Decathlon to get aerobatic time when I feel the need. Again different mission.   

 Mark

Kitfox 5 Vixen

912UL IVO

Hartford, Wisconsin



	
   [quote][b]

_________________
Mark Scott
Winston-Salem, NC

MichaelGibbs(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:40 am Post subject: Kitfox vs. Van's RV

 	  Quote: 	
		  Are there any Kitfox owners out there who regularly throw in a 

couple loops or rolls to mix things up?


	


I have heard that it's not uncommon to see Steve Kellandar doing just 

that in his Model IV-1200 Speedster.



 	  Quote: 	
		  ...are they fun in the Kitfox, etc.


	


That's what Tim Weber indicated after a couple of flights in my 'fox.



Mike G.

N728KF

Phoenix, AZ

darinh

Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 327
Location: Utah

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:26 am Post subject: Re: Kitfox vs. Van's RV

I am with Mark on this, I don't know how comfortable I would feel doing aerobatics in the Fox.  It definitely can be done as shown by Jimmy Franklin in the famous Classic IV airshow video but...



I knew an instructor that used to do rolls in a Cessna 150...CRAZY!!  Unfortunately, he is not around anymore.

_________________
Darin Hawkes
Series 7
914 Turbo
Kaysville, Utah

Michel

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 966
Location: Norway

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:04 pm Post subject: Kitfox vs. Van's RV

On Oct 26, 2007, at 1:03 PM, dave wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Michel,   I have several videos here of my  Kitfox IV   on you tube.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg1qKTvHOAg   150'  easy take offs.


	


Dave, I have seen, I think, all of your videos on YouTube. I have send 

their link to many friends and, since the earth is round, I have even 

received back those links from friends.



I cannot do what you are doing from my  2,400 ft asphalt runway because 

it is an ICAO certified airfield with strong regulations. But even so, 

I wouldn't dare to do half of what you are doing.



But I thank you for doing it and illustrate in as videos because it 

shows me what a Kitfox can do and endure and it makes me feel more 

confident if an incident should occur.



This being said and while I fly from a very safe airfield with lots of 

flat fields around, I often do dead-stick landing on the mark, just to 

practice precision landing if I should experience an engine cut. But 

otherwise, I have never done what you guys are doing, like flying a few 

feet over a river bed, etc. I am never below the legal 500 ft AGL. 

Still, I love flying and I love my Kitfox and wouldn't exchange it for 

anything else.



Cheers,

Michel Verheughe

Norway

Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200

_________________
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200

akanka(at)kiamichiwb.org
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:29 pm Post subject: Kitfox vs. Van's RV

Michel,

The flying regulations in the U.S. do not specify a minimum altitude over

open water or sparsely populated areas.  I've copied the part that specifies

our minimum altitude below:



"Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an

aircraft below the following altitudes:



(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency

landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.



(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or

settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000

feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of

the aircraft.



(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the

surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases,

the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,

vehicle, or structure.



(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums

prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is

conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition,

each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes

specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator."



John Hart

--

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:51 pm Post subject: Kitfox vs. Van's RV

Up here in the Great soon to be white, North TC (Transport Canada) has these

regs on low flight.  There is also regs for allowed low flight, Approaches

and take offs Etc.  



602.14 (1) [Repealed]

(amended 2003/03/01; previous version)



(2) Except where conducting a take-off, approach or landing or where

permitted under section 602.15, no person shall operate an aircraft



(a) over a built-up area or over an open-air assembly of persons unless the

aircraft is operated at an altitude from which, in the event of an emergency

necessitating an immediate landing, it would be possible to land the

aircraft without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface,

and, in any case, at an altitude that is not lower than



(i) for aeroplanes, 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle located within a

horizontal distance of 2,000 feet from the aeroplane,



(ii) for balloons, 500 feet above the highest obstacle located within a

horizontal distance of 500 feet from the balloon, or



(iii) for an aircraft other than an aeroplane or a balloon, 1,000 feet above

the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of 500 feet from

the aircraft; and



(b) in circumstances other than those referred to in paragraph (a), at a

distance less than 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.



More words but essentially the same as the FAA regs.

[quote] --

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

MichaelGibbs(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:43 pm Post subject: Kitfox vs. Van's RV

Darin sez:



 	  Quote: 	
		  I knew an instructor that used to do rolls in a Cessna 150...CRAZY!!


	


Why do you consider that crazy?  A properly executed roll would never 

come close to the design limits for a normal category airplane.  I'm 

assuming that there are no restrictions on performing the maneuver in 

the operating limitations.  My Turbo Arrow has a placard saying that 

no aerobatic maneuvers, including spins, are approved.



Mike G.

N728KF

Phoenix, AZ

dave

Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 1382

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:12 pm Post subject: Re: Kitfox vs. Van's RV

aileron roll is 1 g 



loop   3 g

_________________
Realtime Kitfox movies to separate the internet chatter from the truth
http://www.youtube.com/user/kitfoxflyer
Hundreds of Kitfox Movies
Most viewed Kitfox on youtube
Most popular on youtube
Highest rated on youtube

dave

Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 1382

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:15 pm Post subject: Re: Kitfox vs. Van's RV

Michel,



 	  Quote: 	
		  But I thank you for doing it and illustrate in as videos because it 

shows me what a Kitfox can do and endure and it makes me feel more 

confident if an incident should occur. 

	




I would like to challenge others to get more Kitfox Videos up on youtube or wherever.  I have 20 some odd up there now and could get a few more up any day now    

Dave

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: Kitfox vs. Van's RV

Bet you've never rolled your plane with the floats on   My father

intentionally spun his C172 on floats....  He told me not to be as foolish

as he was.   Recovery took almost 3.000ft.



Noel



[quote] --

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

darinh

Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 327
Location: Utah

Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject: Re: Kitfox vs. Van's RV

Mike,



Have you ever flown a C150 (this is a 1964 150 not a newer 152 Acrobat)?  I fly one regularly and although it is capable of a roll, it just is not made for them and doesn't execute them very well at all...this is why I think he was crazy.  The way he would roll the aiplane was to first point the nose toward the ground to get the airplane right up to redline then pull up fairly aggressively and do the roll.  When the roll was completed, he would exit in a pretty steep nose down attitude and would have lost a couple hundred feet in the process.  The POH on the C150 says nothing about acro except that loaded under utiliy class, it can do spins.  You may think rolls is a 150 are fine but I think its a bit loco.

_________________
Darin Hawkes
Series 7
914 Turbo
Kaysville, Utah

MichaelGibbs(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject: Kitfox vs. Van's RV

Darin sez:



 	  Quote: 	
		  Have you ever flown a C150 (this is a 1964 150 not a newer 152 Acrobat)?


	


Yes.  I did my initial training in a C-150.  Didn't fly a 152 until I 

was almost ready for my private pilot check ride.



 	  Quote: 	
		  I fly one regularly and although it is capable of a roll, it just is 

not made for them and doesn't execute them very well at all...this 

is why I think he was crazy.


	


I was just asking why you thought so, not suggesting it was smart.



Short-winged Kitfoxes are supposed to be able to roll at 120 degrees 

per second.  I never rolled my Model IV myself but it seemed like 

that number was in the ball park.  I think the Kitfox would do a much 

better job than your description of the 150's version.  



Mike G.

N728KF

Phoenix, AZ

wingsdown(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject: Kitfox vs. Van's RV

Good point Darin. As it was pointed out to me once by a very experienced

pilot, yes you can do aerobatics in a Kitfox. However, the margin for

error is very small. Do it exactly right every time and you're a great

pilot. Get it wrong and it can be very very wrong and usually

unrecoverable for a variety of what should be oblivious reason. I think

some years ago another wise person on the list suggested it is best to

get into an aircraft designed to do what you intend to do in it. Like

Noel said, the tri gear is not going to like the sand bars. And so the

debate of how good a person thinks he or she is compared to what the

aircraft was designed for goes on. I would rather not gamble with that

side of luck. I do however hold sacred anyone's right to make that

decision for their self. I to have had much fun in my life while doing

stupid things. Seems the older I get the more stupid things I realize I

have done. Not suggesting anyone here is stupid. 



Rick

darinh

Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 327
Location: Utah

Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:28 am Post subject: Re: Kitfox vs. Van's RV

Rick,



Very well said...my thoughts exactly.

_________________
Darin Hawkes
Series 7
914 Turbo
Kaysville, Utah

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:00 am Post subject: Kitfox vs. Van's RV

Stupid things??? I'm still doing them.



Earlier this fall a friend visited here with his Ducatti (ST3??)  This is a

sport touring machine.  Of course I had to take it for a little run.  I went

up a hill behind a pick up truck at about 60 KPH. Slipping the clutch in

first gear.  At the top of the hill I fire walled the throttle and before

you can say "Boo" I was through three or four gears and way too close to

200Kph for comfort.  



Easing off the throttle allowed the bike to slow a little.  The lightest

squeeze on the ABS brakes had me back to 80 Kph.  No I didn't need to change

my shorts.  I can only imagine trying to explain to a Mountie that I really

didn't intend to exceed the posted limit by over a hundred Kilometres per

hour!  Even if it was only for the length of a cat's tail.



The fact I'd love to have one of those bikes makes me think I should have my

head examined.  I figure you could time the validation of my license with a

stopwatch if I had one of those.



Noel



[quote] --

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

dave

Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 1382

Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:04 am Post subject: Re: Kitfox vs. Van's RV

Rick,  Can you elaborate on  what this means ? 



Thx



 	  Quote: 	
		  Do it exactly right every time and you're a great 

pilot. Get it wrong and it can be very very wrong and usually 

unrecoverable for a variety of what should be oblivious reason.

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum