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 website FAQ
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

84KF
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject: Kitfox website FAQ

What does all this mean?

...as found (at)

http://kitfoxaircraft.com/FAQ.htm#2



(Q) Does the Kitfox qualify for Light Sport Aircraft (LSA)?   



(A) "Absolutely !  The current Kitfox can be operated at the 1320 lb gross weight when on gear and the 1430 lb gross when on floats. It can also be converted from floats, to skis, to tail wheel or to Tricycle gear.. Your choice."



(Q) What is the gross weight of a Kitfox?



 (A) "The current Kitfox has been structurally tested at 1550 lbs gross weight at +6g and -3g Load Limit.  With an empty weight of 750 lbs, it can easily be operated within the LSA limit of 1320 lb gross. Not concerned about LSA?  Use the full 1550 lb gross weight limit and have an 800 lb useful load."



What does the following have to do with the above?



Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations page 44793

"Some commenters stated that lacking

a definition of maximum takeoff weight,

aircraft with fairly high performance

characteristics could meet the definition

of light-sport aircraft by limiting the

approved weight and payload of the

airplane. The FAA considers this a valid

concern and has provided some

additional constraints on the weight as

detailed below. The maximum weight of

a light-sport aircraft is the sum of:

(1) Aircraft empty weight;

(2) Weight of the passenger for each

seat installed;

(3) Baggage allowance for each

passenger; and

(4) Full fuel, including a minimum of

the half-hour fuel reserve required for

day visual flight rules in § 91.151(a)(1).

Guy Buchanan

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1204
Location: Ramona, CA

Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:57 pm Post subject: Kitfox website FAQ

At 05:08 PM 3/3/2007, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  What does all this mean?

...as found (at)

http://kitfoxaircraft.com/FAQ.htm#2


	


Steve,

         We beat this to death just four months ago. It just can't 

get any deader. If you have additional information to bring to the 

subject, please post it. If you're asking anyone if they have any new 

information to bring to the discussion, please ask. But please, let's 

not "discuss" it again.



Guy Buchanan

K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.



Do not archive

_________________
Guy Buchanan
Deceased K-IV 1200
A glider pilot too.

Bob

Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 89
Location: Damascus, Maryland, USA

Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:46 am Post subject: Re: Kitfox website FAQ

What Guy said

+1

do not archive

_________________
Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.

barry(at)pgtc.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:35 am Post subject: Kitfox website FAQ

I also believe we are beating this todeath.  A sport airplane must be 

CERTIFIED to have a maximum gross weight of no more than 1320 pounds unless 

it is on floats.



Barry West

---

84KF
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:36 am Post subject: Re: Kitfox website FAQ

"A sport airplane must be CERTIFIED to have a maximum gross weight of no more than 1320 pounds unless it is on floats." 



 Maximum gross weight????  Where might one find that term used in either the Final Rule or the sportpilot regs? Enlighten us please. Provide the reference.



 Maximum takeoff weight...yes... max gross...nope.



No comment on your use of the word "certified"

eskflyer(at)lvcisp.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:17 am Post subject: Kitfox website FAQ

STEVE



You continue to beat this to death and I for one am tired of it . IF you 

connot realize that to fly a under Sport Pilot the aircraft CANNOT ever have 

been from the first time since its first certification has continued to meet 

the following

[II] 1320 lbs for land plane

[III] 1430 lbs for seaplane



This meens that if the plane was certified with a maximum weight of 1350 lbs 

originaly at time of certification for experimetnal class or otherwise then 

it cannot be used for sport pilot

READ CFR PART 1.1

THIS IS SET IN STONE .

If you cannot read and comprehend this then I dont think you need to be 

flying at all.

If you dont like the rules then go to the FAA and tell them your theory.



John Perry



DO NOT ARCHIVE

eskflyer(at)lvcisp.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:34 am Post subject: Kitfox website FAQ

Heres your answer .

http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/aircraft_index.html

http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/lsa/standard_certificate_aircraft.html



John Perry

84KF
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:49 pm Post subject: Re: Kitfox website FAQ

Personal slur noted. ...and ignored.

Yet the the following statement still remains unconfirmed by it's poster. I doubt he will return with rational response. can you?  Can you provide what he failed to? Provide it from a FAA source, not a commercial publication the is subject to errors and mis-information.



"A sport airplane must be CERTIFIED to have a maximum gross weight of no more 

than 1320 pounds unless it is on floats." 



 Maximum gross weight????  Where might one find that term used in either the Final Rule or the sportpilot regs? Enlighten us please. Provide the reference.



 Maximum takeoff weight...yes... max gross...nope.

d(at)cfisher.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:19 pm Post subject: Kitfox website FAQ

Steve,



In Canada  we have a simular issue with regards to wording etc.

You guys cannot fly with a LSA license if the aircraft is registered over 

1320 lbs on wheels.

Our Ultralight permit holders can fly a plane that has a higher gross but 

takeoff weight cannot exceed 1200lbs.

-notice how i call it a "permit" because it is not a license - if thats 

matters.



But A UL permit holder can fly  say a Kitfox on floats at 1200 take off 

weight and it does not matter if it a UL or amatuerbuilt or a Certified GA 

aircraft but a priv pilot or higher license holder must have a float 

endorsement.



Same silly laws with LSA have messed up the Amphib flyers as you can not 

have a retractable gear in the category as I understand it .   I know the 

SPA went  to bat for the amphib pilots last year and I would bet the law 

would change soon.

Same goes in time for "adjustable props" .   Notice I did not call  them 

ground adjust or CAP - just adjustable.



Another issue is since LSA pilots do not have a Aviation Medical they are 

not allowed to fly in Canada either. I would expect this topic will be 

adressed over the next 3 months as FAA and Transport Canada meet.



Hope this helps everyone, and I hate to say it but Steve it right.  -- for 

now at least .

Dave

---

barry(at)pgtc.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:17 pm Post subject: Kitfox website FAQ

You may be right that it is take off weight rather than maximum gross but 

the point I am trying to make is that the original certifcation states the 

weight the airplane will always be limited to.  That is an airplane 

originally certified at 1550 pounds can not be later limited to 1320 or any 

other weight to become a sport plane.



Barry West



---

Float Flyr

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

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:23 pm Post subject: Kitfox website FAQ

Dave:   

The fight I had with Transport Canada over the whole question of float endorsement has been settled.  A Pilot with a higher permit or license than Pilot Permit-Ultra light may fly any aircraft 1200lb. or under as an ultralight regardless of the landing configuration.    This comes about as the legal definition of an ultralight in Canada isn't one of registration but one of physical description.  There fore if it flies in Canada and is under 1201Lb. and has a  Vso of less than 45mph it is an ultralight regardless of the registration, regardless of the landing configuration.    

Of course there are other restrictions on aircraft that are registered AULA or BULA (Advanced Ultralight Aircraft or Basic Ultralight Aircraft).  The most interesting of these I find to be the requirement for pilots of a BULA to wear a helmet while flying.  That doesn't sound too bad until you realize there is no definition for a helmet.  One fellow suggested a postage stamp would cover the legality…. And not too much more!  

There is one item I think our American cousins will be interested in.  That is the question of conventional gear endorsement....  We don't have any such endorsement.  We do for people like myself, who have never flown conventional gear, recommend getting some time before heading out to the small grass/mud strips and breaking something.  There is no legal requirement for us to do so.  

This is my third year coming up and you can believe I'm biting at the bullet to get my fox on flats back in the air.   

Noel  

 

  

[quote] --

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

84KF
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:12 pm Post subject: Re: Kitfox website FAQ

Mr, West, 

  Tell me, or show me , where or when  my Series 5 was ever certified with a" FAA official" gross weight. Nothing in operating limitations, AW cert data plate or current W&B. There is no record, in the entire aircraft history, from application for AW cert through compliance with phase 1 and beyond, nor is it  necessary under MY ops limits or FAA regs to even mention it or declare one.

My local FAA FSDO has reviewed it all and declared every thing in proper order. 

 It's a dog-gone Experimental-amateur built,  with the proper and legal paperwork, and meets the definition in FAR 1.1 with the exception of a "certified gross weight" ....which it does not have, and is not required.

  That leaves the official FAA definition of "maximum takeoff weight" as published in the FAA\DOT Final Rule which states the  restriction to remain at or below 1320lbs at time of take-off. How strong it was built , eg.  it's design limit of 1500LBS, has nothing to to with the mass of the aircraft at take-off. And that is the key to the riddle. It's stated in the final rule that it is mass, and only mass that that is of concern. Not silly paperwork.

 Read it for yourself. I don't expect you to believe me.

eskflyer(at)lvcisp.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:58 pm Post subject: Kitfox website FAQ

Steve



Just curious what does your weight and balance show for a gross weight for 

the aircraft of yours .

I am not trying to end a war or start a battle so I will say I am sorry for 

some of the comments I made directed to you .

But the fact does remain According to Ok city the FINAL ANSWER IS  1320 

period for maximum gross weight of the aircraft experimental certified or 

LSA. to meet the requirement of sport pilot flyability . if it is over by 

one pound on the paper work then it cannot legally be flown as a sport plane

Tom Jones

Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Posts: 752
Location: Ellensburg, WA

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:57 pm Post subject: Re: Kitfox website FAQ

 	  Quote: 	
		  My local FAA FSDO has reviewed it all and declared every thing in proper order. 	




A wise old work supervisor I once worked for (Federal Gov.) had a saying..."If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question".



That answer from your FISDO is very good news for you.  The answers you will get here are not.



Tom Jones

kitfoxmike

Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 373

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject: Re: Kitfox website FAQ

The faa doesn't care about anything but what is in black and white, if you have something in your records that shows more than 1320 for weight you better change it or not fly sport with it, period. One more thing, if you are flying without a weight and balance, shame on you, or I should say I would never fly your airplane. And it's not because I'm flying sport either.

84KF
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:06 pm Post subject: Re: Kitfox website FAQ

John, 

   you wrote....

“According to Ok city the FINAL ANSWER IS  1320 period for maximum gross weight of the aircraft experimental certified or 

LSA. to meet the requirement of sport pilot flyability . if it is over by one pound on the paper work then it cannot legally be flown as a sport plane” 



  What Federal (FAA) or DOT publication did they consult? Where does it ACTUALLY say such? The last time I went to my FSDO, they went to the EAA website to get their information because they didn’t have a clue.

Seriously... WHERE does it say that??  You won’t find such a statement because it has never existed. only perpetuated by the print media and the uninformed. 

Perhaps you could pass along the name of the actual Legal rep you spoke to at OKC and his official source of information. Did they fax it to you? Bet not.

  Unless it’s public and published, it won’t gell and such hearsay just promotes the (your) confusion

 I have spoken to many more “officials” then just one, and if such information existed, they would have shoved it in my face. They all had biased opinions, and that’s all they would offer.

 The Easter Bunny and Santa Clause are not real ya know, even though our parents told us so. 

And we trusted and believed them too.



As for my weight and balance, read my previous post.

...and Tom...I hear ya!

MichaelGibbs(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:33 pm Post subject: Kitfox website FAQ

For the umpteenth time, Steve sez:



 	  Quote: 	
		  That leaves the official FAA definition of "maximum takeoff weight" 

as published in the FAADOT Final Rule which states the restriction 

to remain at or below 1320lbs at time of take-off.


	


It looks like you are still struggling with the word, "maximum."  I'd 

remind you that I provided specific references to the FARs last time 

(as opposed to your references to the Federal Register, which are 

merely commentary) and to the dictionary definition of the word 

"maximum" (since the FAA neglected to define the term) but as I 

recall, this entire subject was officially put to bed by the list 

moms the last time it came up--so I won't.



Mike G.

N728KF

84KF
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:47 am Post subject: Re: Kitfox website FAQ

"(since the FAA neglected to define the term)"



But Mike,

  Exactly  ... We are first given a term, “maximum take-off weight “ in 1.1., with no definition, just as you state. So what do we need to do? Go to the FAA\DOT publication that does give it, ..it will even  takes you through the process of why it is what it is.  Why is the definition provided in the first place if  is allowed be ignored at will. It's the FAA They don't do that.

   No, it’s not just commentery, and even if you believe it is, ok,  it still explains, demonstrates and proves the INTENT of the statement, They tell you  what it is , and why it is.

   It’s (the Final Rule)  the... instructions,  that explain the intent and reasoning behind all decisions and rules, and you will see that the stated INTENT is to limit Mass , thus Potential energy, when combined wiith a limiting speed specification,.in aircraft to be flown by  pilots using Sportpilot privilages. 

  This equation...(The empty weight + weight of full fuel regardless of actual. etc etc), the definition..., solves the problem of the subject of weight.. Nothing changes..., nothing is different, Perfect harmony all around.,absolutally NO safery issue is involved, and no FAA reg is violated when it’s applied. There are no contridictions to ANY other information provided. 

And why would there be?

    They considered all angles when they wrote the law. The FAA knew (understood) that Experimental aircraft are not the same as, and therefor cannot, be regulated as precise as, Type Certificated  Aircraft  So the limiting weight factor they dicided on  is a fits-all wonder. A wonderful work of logic that limits exactally what they want, in a proper and fair way for ALL aircraft. 

  Again, all this is spelled ot in the Final Rule.  



  A Series 5, with a typical Empty weight, is now , even more,   (always was ) a very very versatile aircraft. The Sport pilot will find that he\she\ can meet the definition for “MTOW” quite nicely  2 normal persons, the weight of full tanks considered , some cargo......look here, still way under 1320 lbs. Yet it has a maximum proven design weight, that when properly assembled, will safely fly weighing 1400 lbs  This is good yes? would we rather the aircraft fall apart at 1321lbs    

  You would read  the FAA raised the weight to 1320 lbs to encourage commercial development of more effecient airframe\engine combinitations. That is fact.They hope it does. It’s their intention  (Remember intention, intent...more later.) If increased safety factors, such as  lift to weight ratios increase, and\or stall speed decreases....it’s then working all as  hoped and planned...as intended..



What if I get a 3rd class physical to supplement my valid PVT cert? (Biannual flight review is current in a C-172 )  Now I want to carry more cargo, so Maximum takeoff weight might go to , say, 1380 lbs.. All this is fine too



Now, here’s the zinger .....

        MY plane is still Phase One. MY plane has never excceded 1320 pounds at takeoff, since it has been limited  by the Operating  Limitation, issued by the FAA,  to solo flight,  naturally....,  and I’m not that big. Remember this fact     ...It has NEVER exceeded 1320 lbs.at takeoff.



  Therefor, according to “Ask the Expert at EAA Mike“, (sorry, his name IS Mike. No pun intended.) MY Series 5 is eligible for use under Sportpilot privileges, regardless of any so called “Gross Weights, or any other term you want to use. He, a (respected ) EAA editor has told my personally (landline) that until the aircraft  exceeds  1320 lbs at take off, it’s allowed and  legal for sportpilot privileges  .. So for all who said “go to the EAA, well, I did.

 You will find his “opinion” on the web, EAA website  I’m not going to include a link , but will provide it on request if you don’t find it. You’ll know it when ya see it.

 

A few more comments...



  While I can live with this for now.... I don‘t like it , Consider the fact that it in conflict with much of what you  you have been “told” by FAA reps, in all flavors, and the media, such as popular mags and professional websites.  “Google” words like “Lightsport”, and “sportpilot” and read all the different ways they describe what IS “maximum takeoff weight”. No two print the same, every one uses, or substitutes different terms at will.  Gross weight, maximum gross weight, etc, etc...  

  Well, there’s your problem....... (Mythbusters)



There is still the “since original certification etc etc..” part of the rule to understand. That was added  to the Final rule for a very specific reason, and when you read the intent, the reason why it was added, (Hint... it was added to restrict the modification of Type Certificated” aircraft.  No more, no less., also with an excellent explanation of why.)  Commentary..., or otherwis, it show intent.  Yet one cannot deny  that it’s casual, common usage has been twisted around. 

  Does it mean, or is the actual intent that... “ since original certification .....“ the aircraft has never exceeded weight specs since it was new,? or...just perhaps...,  “the aircraft CAN  meet the definition in FAR 1.1 and always has been able to “since original certification”... without modifications?

 Read it..., think about it . Remember the intent of the wording, and the situation actually being addressed at that time.



  Now also consider that our maintenance regs are , shall I say..., less restrictive... then Type Cert aircraft, we are not bound to the same, (or any) airworthiness standards. And since (again , as explained in the Final Rule)  nothing in maintenance privilges, (cough  cough..(modifications) cough... ) etc,  for us has changed. Ergo you may  ............   

    Is it, by intention..., (as explained in...yada yada) meant to limit us, along with Type Certificated aircraft?  Or...,  just .Type Certificated aircraft alone... well (IMHO)  within their rights, and  necessary to maintain high quality and consistent standards  among other things. Intent...applied  meaningfully, with out  bias. and in the proper context.......  Opps, better not go there 



  I’ll stop for now.. but willing to continue. Wouldn’t want to beat it to death ya know.



Just for the record, the FAA (as explained in Final Rule,) considers “ certification” of EXp-amateur built as the time (date) it receives it Airworthiness Cert from FAA   “Date of approval” on the cert...something like that...



 I really appreciate your interest 

   Steve

Last edited by 84KF on Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:30 am; edited 1 time in total

d(at)cfisher.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:04 am Post subject: Kitfox website FAQ

Steve,



I have to hand it to you,  Well documented information there.



I cannot see why anyone could argue with that ?



Read my next post  I  made a mistake yesterday.



Dave

---

d(at)cfisher.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:07 am Post subject: Kitfox website FAQ

Ok guys I was in contact with higher ups yesterday  and I made an error as 

follows......



"Our Ultralight permit holders can fly a plane that has a higher gross but

 	  Quote: 	
		   takeoff weight cannot exceed 1200lbs.

"
	


The aircraft must be registered as 1200 lbs gross weight for the above to be 

in effect.

eg -- so a c-150 that has a gorss of 1500 lbs could be registered as a 1200 

gross to hae a UL pilot to legally fly it.

-thus you would be limiting your aircraft for others at this point to not 

exceed that 1200 gross weight -regardless of pilot's  license.



Makes sense ?

Dave

---

Display posts from previous:

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