Activity Stream

Activity Stream

  1. akflyer added a post in a topic inclineometer gauge installed....   

    Have you flown with it yet?  I am curious as to what deck angle you stall at It would actually be a damn good instrument for testing the VG's.  I would like to know how much more deck angle you get with them installed.  That would tell you the most about placement I think.

    you still have another one of those damn things?

    <fer experimentin with the experimental
    • 0
  2. akflyer added a topic in Hardcore Avidfoxflyers   

    hey Mr. cant play nice with others
    are ya bored yet LMAO.. sorry, just had to get a dig in.    It is a sumbitch when you see something on there that you just have to shout out about........ and cant reply huh..
    Thats ok, you cant be banned over here, I dont play well with others and love a good fight (read "discussion")



    • 0 replies
    • 1,101 views
  3. 84KF added a topic in Avid fox flyers pics and vids   

    inclineometer gauge installed....
    The plane sits at a +14 degree attitude (indicated)....., no test flight yet.
    I know a piece of tape in the corner of the windshield would show the reference to the horizon just the same...but what the heck. Totally frivolous for sure, but it's probably safe to say no other Kitfox has one installed.

    Steve

    • 7 replies
    • 861 views
  4. akflyer added a post in a topic ok guests what do you want to see here   

    I know that several of the guys have retired and they are hurting bad.  One local outfit has been waiting over a year to have a conformity inspection done on a new plane they want to add to the fleet.  May be able to work out a part time gig?  Yes it is working out of the ANC FSDO from what I have been told.  A buddy of mine was a witness in a case against a 135 operator he had worked for in the past and the feds hit him up trying to get him to come to work for them.  They cant find anyone with alaska time or knowledge.  Atleast that was the story a few months ago.

    Spudding one in due to small arms fire is a plausible excuse, I guess we can let that one slide.  Thanks for your service!  That is what has given us the right to have open formums like this one.


    • 0
  5. akflyer added a post in a topic A picture for float-boy.....ehhh.. I mean Leni.   

    just pull out on the runway.  As you accelerate with the truck hold full down and wait for about 50-55 then firewall it and take off... save you from draggin it through the woods.  Course we want video of it all to 

    they are very fun flying planes and are pretty damn close to the kitfox on floats except the KF is alot lighter and more responsive on the controls.  Either one they are very relaxing to fly.  Nice plane!  Most of the J-3's and T-crates around here are on EDO 1320's I could not tell for sure but from the pics I think that is what he has on there also.


    • 0
  6. 84KF added a topic in Avid fox flyers pics and vids   

    A picture for float-boy.....ehhh.. I mean Leni.
    This is how I spent my Sunday.... Annual time, before it gets dragged 1/2 mile through the woods and across a highway to the lake access

    J-3 with a 90hp continental.... don't know specific anything about the floats.... but you float guys will.

    I rode in it once a few years back, my only float experience to date.
    What I remember most was the first landing in a local lake.....  it just seemed totally unnatural to be bobbing around on the water, but sitting in a airplane.

    But I could get used to it.... (it WAS fun)
    Steve


    • 1 reply
    • 463 views
  7. kl7jw added a post in a topic ok guests what do you want to see here   

    This conformity thing, is that with the Anchorage FSDO?  I used help write and dissemenate the Part 135 operating limitations there, as well as helped with the confomity inspections.  Been a long tim, but I do have the FAA Academy training on that stuff, but I doubt that they would want an old fart like me up there unless they are hiring summer help these days.

    Nope, I wasn't the dumbass that did that!  It was another one!  ;D  The only helicopters I ever broke was due to small arms fire, and I ain't gonna accept being the cause of those incidents.  :beerchug:
    • 0
  8. akflyer added a post in a topic ok guests what do you want to see here   

    dont know if you are interested or not, but the FAA is way behind on conformity inspections and I heard that they are looking for someone or several people who have a clue about Alaska flying and bush carriers.  If you were interested in coming back up and wanted a little work on the side it may be an option.

    now to hack on you.... were you the dumbass that overloaded the heli and turned turttle on takeoff? 


    • 0
  9. kl7jw added a post in a topic ok guests what do you want to see here   

    Awww, shucks, I feel neglected now!  Nobody wants to hack on me.   

    Hey, I knew you weren't picking on me, just pointing out the errors, and if that had happened while I was flying in the military, it would have been the same kind of thing.  Somebody would have let me know, in no uncertain terms, that I blew it. 

    Yes, there are different weights specified for different things - maximum gross weight, maximum takeoff weight, maximum landing weight (which can be less than maximum takeoff weight), even maximum G-loading weights limiting some manuevers, and maximum forward, aft, or lateral CG limit weights for some aircraft.  Good exmple of the last one comes to mind of lateral loading of a single rotor helicopter with a maximum load on the left side.  Lateral control limits can be exceeded while lifting off to a hover in some cases.  That can be embarrassing!

    John Hart

     
    • 0
  10. akflyer added a post in a topic ok guests what do you want to see here   

    nobody was hacking on ya, just trying to acertain the facts.  I have looked at several guys paperwork up here and NO ONE has anything in the paperwork about a mystical gross weight.  I am sure as a military aviator, you are aware that the MAXIMUM Takeoff Weight and the gross weight of an aircraft are two seperate things.... the same as a maximum landing weight.  Why everyone insists on using the term gross weight instead of "takeoff" weight is beyond me.


    • 0
  11. kl7jw added a post in a topic Got'er flyin'!   

    Uhhh, I think you're right about the "hold my beer" thing with a Kitfox winter, or even summer fly-in!

    Won't be long now before the salmon runs start if you're into breakup.  I'd sure like to get back up that way for a while, but got to ride it out here until I can sell the house.

    John Hart
    • 0
  12. kl7jw added a post in a topic ok guests what do you want to see here   

    Hey, I already been hacked at!  Just because I made a comment that was incorrect, too!  [  But, that don't mean nothin' except I DID make a mistake.  Ain't the first time I've been wrong about something and it probably won't be the last mistake I make either. :beerchug: 

    As a matter of fact, I think it's great when we can discuss opinions and be told when we are wrong and check out things in the references to prove or disprove our opinions.  It's a lot like military flight crewmembers on an aircraft working together to get the job done.  It's not important who points out a mistake, but it is important to pay attention that the mistake was pointed out, and to accept the responsibility for it, correct it, and move on, not to get in a p***ing contest because you think you are right. 

    John Hart
    • 0
  13. kl7jw added a post in a topic Gross weight on the AW cert....not there.   

    No, the only place I can find a "gross weight" indicated on my Eperimental Kitfox is on the data plate (which is not an FAA requirement) and in the weight and balance calculations.  I was wrong about it being on the Special Airworthiness certificate.  And, I may be wrong about a "Gross weight" being on the application, I haven't looked lately.  I was almost certain that the weight and balance calculations had to be presented to the DAR or Inspector issuing the Special Airworthiness Certificate, but I didn't look that up either.  I'm getting about as bad as some other folks! [
    • 0
  14. kl7jw added a post in a topic Stupid stupid stupid.....   

    And, in case you didn't notice, i didn't use the spell checker in my last post!  [

    John Hart
    • 0
  15. kl7jw added a post in a topic Stupid stupid stupid.....   

    Uhhhh, where do I find the max gross weight for my E-LSA??  Ohhhh, I forgot, only two place "ultralights" can be licensed asw E-LSA, right? :  Really, I don't think some of them folks have much reading comprehension, nor how to research anything for themselves.

    Got any warm weater up your way yet leneord?


    John Hart
    • 0
  16. akflyer added a post in a topic Another rebuttal.....   

    keep it up mister, you are one step closer to a total   
    Keep those panties bunched up I like the fire in the keyboard!


    • 0
  17. akflyer added a post in a topic Opps...my apologies The site is stiil there...   

    I dont know why people cant read for themselves... until I took the time to read the FAR link you posted last year, I was on the shut the hell up band wagon.  Then I read it whala, right in front of you in black and white is the answer, not spun by some guys opion, just plain black and white.
    • 0
  18. 84KF added a topic in Avidfoxflyers General Hangar   

    Another rebuttal.....
    Jay & Beverly to kitfox-list
    --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jay & Beverly"

    "It would be nice if current TO weight could be used. If this were the case I think there would be more normal category aircraft available to sport pilots. If the TO weight can be used, the authorities that have that information are treating it like a state secret. I think AOPA, EAA, and anyone with a normal category aircraft for sale that has a weight just above 1320 would have banner headlines with that information."

    "It would be nice if current TO weight could be used"

    Some one is not paying attention.....

    "If this were the case I think there would be more normal category aircraft available to sport pilots"

    No, because the empty weight of these aircraft would put them over the weight limit when all else is figured in.

    Once again, from http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_rule.pdf 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).

    Take any certificated aircraft, and using the data in it's TCDS do the math, and see for yourself.
    Now, you won't find "empty weight" in a TCDS, because it varies from aircraft to aircraft. Do some research, find the typical empty weight of any certificated aircraft NOT on the list, apply the "formula" and see that they are unable to meet the definition.
    Faa link.... http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/media/existing_models.pdf
    EAA link... http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_aircraft.html
    One will not find any certificated aircraft not on the list, that would be otherwise.
    These boys (FAA) did their homework on this one...they have all bases covered.

    "If the TO weight can be used, the authorities that have that information are treating it like a state secret"

    The "information" has been available since July 24, 2007.
    http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_rule.pdf

    Steve
    • 1 reply
    • 306 views
  19. 84KF added a topic in Avidfoxflyers General Hangar   

    Opps...my apologies The site is stiil there...
    And in all fairness, here is the link... http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmfaqs.asp?topicid=12

    It just didn't google for me as usual... my bad.

    Anyway, here is the link to the post in question.... and the reply that mentions the "well, if you ever exceed...."

    http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=415

    Also, Mr. Norris depends on twisting the facts, such as
    ..."This verbiage clearly says that an aircraft must meet all the criteria called out in the definition of an LSA at the time of its original certification AND CONTINUOUSLY thereafter....", which is intended to apply to TCDS aircraft only, as stated in the final rule...  found under
    Modifications of Aircraft To Meet the Light-Sport Aircraft Definition
    As stated above in the
    section titled ‘‘Modifications of Aircraft
    To Meet the Light-Sport Aircraft
    Definition,’’ a sport pilot may not fly an
    aircraft with a standard airworthiness
    certificate that has been modified to
    meet the light-sport aircraft definition.

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

    It doesnt say ANY aircraft, it states aircraft with  a standard airworthiness
    certificate. Period.


    The problem is one must read the rule first or they wouldn't know this.....


    I have nothing to hide.
    • 1 reply
    • 387 views
  20. akflyer added a post in a topic two faced...or what??   

    damn I need to come up with a kicking the beehive emoticon.  It was very hard for me to hold my tounge or should I say resrtain my fingers from typing a reply to Guy on that one... I pretty damn much had typed what you said pretty close to word for word lol.. I was gonna ask if he had read the ruling for himself and if so, what the hell more info did he need?  I hit the back button instead of reply though as I knew he would give me the boot again for it.

    At the end of the day, here is my bottom line.  If I want to fly a plane, any damn plane, in any manner I wish I will do so.  Just because the regs say I can or cant put X amount of weight in and be "legal" as long as I am safe, I will do as i want. 

    OK lets say that you have lost a medical and you want to fly under sport pilot, or just say piss on it and fly anyway, what is gonna happen.... not a damn thing.  I personally know a guy that had 130 something charges against him (a part 135 operator that happens to owe me money for doing a dead of winter otter retreival operation for him) that was found guilty on all charges.. they took his A&P and AI away as well as commercial certificate.. guess what, the very next day he was flying clients.  This past winter he re-built an otter and sold the damn thing.  What happened to him... not a damn thing.  fly the hell outa your plane at what ever weight you feel comfortable at as there is not a f#$king gross weight documented on your damn experimental plane to begin with.
    • 0
  21. 84KF added a topic in Avidfoxflyers General Hangar   

    two faced...or what??
    Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:36 pm    Post subject: Series 5 Light Sport   

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HOORAY! HOORAY!

    SOMEONE has finally gone the distance and found some
    DEFINITIVE information. (I hope.) Jay, may we have a source for this
    quote? I'd like to know who it came from so we can ascertain their credentials.

    Now before anyone thinks I was rooting either way, I wasn't
    and I'm not. Indeed I hoped that Steve was right and that he would
    publish definitive proof sooner or later. All I wanted was data, not opinion.

    Guy Buchanan
    San Diego, CA


    What a crock.... What is more definitive then the FAA itself, and http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_rule.pdf

    "Now before anyone thinks I was rooting either way...."

    Excuse me?

    "All I wanted was data, not opinion."

    Here's your friggin data Guy.....  http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_rule.pdf

    As I said before... "the Pope Himself......."


    "Indeed I hoped that Steve was right...."

    Oh please....

    "may we have a source for this quote?"

    Naturally, any quote found on the Internet will take precedent over the FAA....in Guys mind.

    (find the reference to Joe Norris elsewhere on this site. ) Note: Joe Norris is NOT the EAA, just someone who wrote for them, and got it wrong. I don't fault the EAA in general, just the dribble Norris published at one time.

    Steve
    PS...It would be nice if it was pointed out to "list" readers that I am unable to reply or respond to Guys comments there due to ...whatever.  Not a very fair way to spread information. Sort of childish....
    • 1 reply
    • 335 views
  22. akflyer added a topic in Avidfoxflyers General Hangar   

    ok guests what do you want to see here
    I know there are alot of lurkers and guests poking around here, and I am wondering what it will take to get you to post up.

    Dont be afraid to say or do anyting that will get you banned here.. within and very few rules nothing is gonna get you banned, we may hack on you a little but not too bad.
    • 6 replies
    • 455 views
  23. akflyer added a post in a topic Stupid stupid stupid.....   

    lol.. we both did a few dyas ago.. in a thread that should have got a few guys over here....  I will see what I can work it into.
    • 0
  24. 84KF added a post in a topic Stupid stupid stupid.....   

    Slip a link to "here" ( http://avidfoxflyers.com/index.php)  into a post "over there" and watch the counts go way, way up.
    Someone there asked about the this site recently, perhaps the group just needs a little "direction"

    Steve
    • 0
  25. akflyer added a post in a topic what to do if your IP has been banned from the list   

    ahh you know me, I can bring out the best in everyone!


    • 0