It's not a model 1 cause it's to wide. To me the wing ribs look like they are undercambered. Did you measure the liftstrut? That will tell if it's a 2 or 3 if the wings are undercambered. If the wings are more or less flat on the bottom, it's a 4. JImChuk PS pictures are of a Kitfox 1 strut. Kitfox 2 are same length. 3 and 4 are about 10" longer PS PS at first glance I thought the the black motor mount was a 912 mount. Should be 4 arms and rubber mounts that come off the four sockets that hold the rubber mounts. Now that I study it some more, I'm not sure. Set it off by it'self, and get some more pictues.
Those rib profiles match the model 4 ribs I have hanging on the wall. Sure doesn't look like a 1, 2 or 3 rib. But you can see the rib tail in the picture like a 1, 2 or 3 rib. So ? Look at the size of those wheel pants, George Washington could have crossed the Delaware in those.
Kitfox 1 has a 36" wide fuselage at the top back of the seat, 2,3, and 4 are 39 1/2" wide. Kitfox 1 and 2 have 98" long lift struts center to center of bolt holes on front lift strut. Kitfox 3 and 4 are 108" if my memory is correct (but way longer then the earlier ones). Kitfox 1,2,and 3 have undercambered wings, Kitfox 4 is more or less flat. That should narrow it down fairly easily. JImChuk
I watched a bunch of their videos last night and after looking closely I noticed they don't land on too much rough stuff. Most of their landings are on old roads, open flat country, and generally semi smooth terrain. From what I seen from their style of landings, a standard gear would handle most of them. Giving credit where credit is due, they are good at what they do but, they trained and practiced for it. Most average pilots don't and probably shouldn't try stuff without practice or training. And yet, they still blow a landing now and then. We all do! Got to admit, though, the bush gear looks awesome!
Service Letter #48 i have i belive just about every service letter(51 of them) and service bulletin (53 of them) printed out (if there is more please let me know) and into a folder if anyone needs copy or info, im sure they on the internet, but i like my paperwork in hard copy, MSHA hates that. Hahahahaaaaa
If you really want to break down the full physics of light aircraft, the best landing that can be done is one that produces optimum insurance of sustaining structural integrity within the conditions the plane is being landed in. In other words the softer the better no matter how tough you think something is. The sky cowboys have done some interesting work but the question still remains how much or how many of these style of landings can the collective structure of the airframe take before some unforseen event becomes an expensive repair bill?....at best or maybe worse? The best answer becomes this is what they can do... not what you should do with them... the good landing is the one you can always walk away from, the best landing is always the one that will keep you walking back to a fully intact airplane.
Poster board is cheap. You will have a firewall in pieces and making the sections to work around a welded on mount is where the poster board comes to play. Multiple pieces with lap joints nicely fabricated to fit around the welded mount will look good compared to slits. Went through this in the '70's when my brother built a Cassutt F1 racer. They weld the mounts on those airplanes to eliminate the weight of 8 spools and four bolts for the engine mount. A cheap Harbor Freight bead roller with joggle dies is a nice tool for this job.
If you take a piece of 1/8" brake line about 3/4" long, can you put it on the tail of the rivet and grab the remaining part of the tail with the rivet gun? Basicly making a long nose on the rivet puller. I've done that before when it was hard to reach a rivet. JImChuk
Hey fly wise! Just heard from Dave at TriMas. Evidentially, they do not make a fastener 1/8” dia. 5/32” is the smallest. There’s got to be a way to pop this rivet! Anybody who has ever built an Avid has run into this. How the hell is it done?
When I removed my original fiberglass tank, I cut it apart just to see what was inside. Ethanol does cause separation of the layers of glass and dissolves the resin. So I don't trust fiberglass tanks anymore after what I seen. I understand the new tanks are ethanol proof, but I am a tad gunshy now. And I am not sold on the plastic tanks either but other than having a metal one made, that's all there is to choose from. The plastic tanks contract and expand a smidge with the temps and can cause a seep at the fittings in certain conditions. Best to check the tightness of the fittings now and then to avoid a seep. I mounted my wing tank so it is not rigid to the spars, it is kind of sandwiched between straps so it can flex a bit. My opinion it that a properly made welded alum tank will not leak if it is not installed rigid. But I don't know much about Avid construction. I just assumed it was similar to the Kitfox. And they are not as thick as one would think so I'd be careful sanding a fiberglass tank unless it was just to smooth a bump of some minor imperfection.
Fly wise, you’re an engineer aren’t you! I have a call in to Peerless Aerospace for Visu-look fasteners. Hopefully they’ll have a cross-reference the rivot. Still waiting to here back. Got their name from TriMas who makes them. Thanks! Has anyone ever dissected a fiberglass fuel tank, 14gal? The tank end which butts to the fuselage needs some profiling work for a good tight fit. One is sunken in the middle where I would need to build up or take down the corners. The other is a good 1/4” out of square. How thick are the ends? Can I sand them to fit? I’m guessing they are an 1” thick.
That nice fluffy snow we had last night that I text flew my Bandit in after the ski installation is now blowing toward Iowa. 30 mph winds today. Blizzard conditions again. Temp is 1 degrees, wind still blowing like hell!