I have the book "Landing Gear Design for Light Aircraft" by Ladislao Pasmany, on page 7(attached below) he summarizes FAR 23 that says ( for certificated aircraft at least) that your minimum ground clearance with landing gear statically deflected in the takeoff position should be no less than 9". So load the plane up to max gross lift the tail to takeoff position and see how much clearance you have. If you operate from rough strips you will want more clearance.
Here's a couple more videos that might give you some ideas, I looked for some videos that showed early model kitfoxs with the higher cambered wing but didn't find any with any narration. The first video below gives a couple of good warnings and he's the only guy ive seen so far that has the vgs on the skylight between the wings.
that's a good idea. Unfortunately i don't have the tailfeathers on at the moment and it'll be awhile before they go back on. Thanks for the info. I didn't think there could be very much travel especially with the rudder so close. I imagine there'd be more when full of people and baggage but still not much or the rudder gets damaged.
You need to be a little more careful reading and listening. They were talking in the video i posted about the Highlanders wing which according to them is the same as the early foxes. The STI wing which is on Trent's plane is an entirely different airfoil. It already has a leading edge piece of plastic or fiberglass glued to the aluminum spar. The video you linked to stated this was a new design from kitfox that hadn't been tested yet. There was some hope that there was more performance to be had. As you pointed out there's not at least with that particular design. It may also be pointed out that Trent didn't smooth the transition between the new leading edge and the rest of the wing. That could have had a significant impact. SuberAvid has also added the KF leading edge to his plane and I don't remember specifics but I do remember he reported improved performance.
Was just watching Trent's video comparing his kitfox to the highlander and about 2:35 they start talking about using the kitfox leading edge on the highlander (same airfoil as the early foxes and avids). He said he got 3-5 mph speed increase on the top end and about the same in stall speed reduction. In conjunction with vgs it made a huge difference.
I asked this question above but didn't get an answer so I'll try rephrasing in multiple questions. How much travel is there in the tailwheel on a normal landing? How much on a "carrier" landing that doesn't damage anything(except the pilots ego)? I'm playing around designing a different tailwheel and just wondering how much travel the standard spring gear has. How much travel is required (with the right spring etc) to avoid damage to the plane? This assumes nothing out of the ordinary. I know i could conceivably come up with a design that could take a huge beating but the rest of the plane would already have fallen apart and it would probably be way too heavy.
How much travel do you guys think these leaf springs have? I mean obviously just before impacting the rudder might be max travel but that might also be a one time thing and the next time even a soft landing might damage the rudder. How much deflection would a normal 3 point landing cause?
Thanks. Decided to go out and do some measuring just to explore my idea. So i hung the rudder back on the plane and the minimal distance between the tailwheel and the rudder has me worried. 1 3/4" seems awfully close for a rookie tailwheel pilot. Definitely going to have to think about this some more.
Funny, I was just thinking about my tailwheel installation when i opened the site and saw your post. My goal is to have my bird to Oshkosh next year and I'm trying to address all known issues before that time so yes I'm very interested in some pics of your tailwheel mounts. I frequently entertain somewhat off the wall ideas for the improvement of my plane. Often they're just dead ends but sometimes they lead to a different idea that does get used. My interesting idea today is to move the tailwheel forward to the next place on the longerons where some diagonal tubes are welded on. The advantages to this are a steeper deck angle for better takeoff aoa and in the event the tailspring fails in some manner the rudder doesn't get crunched. Disadvantages are that tail wheel steering goes away, you may end up crunching the aft fuselage which is probably harder to fix than a rudder and if you really hang it on the prop coming in you might just get your rudder anyway (probably less of an issue for avids than foxes because of the rounded bottom on the rudder) and you would have to do some modifying of your aft fuselage. Since most aircraft are running differential brakes losing tail steering isn't a big deal, just add a mechanism that locks/unlocks the tailwheel based on stick position like the P-51 Mustang. Anyway that's my crazy idea for today.
You said you had one you pulled from a wing I inferred you were offering me that one( kind of difficult to tell what you meant since you also stated you wanted to use it for a storage compartment). And i wondered if it had been damaged during removal. In any case i just bought Jim's tank.
Anybody have the original aluminum wing tanks for the kf 1-3 just gathering dust on a shelf? Hopefully hasn't been sloshed but if so I'll deal with it. I'm not going to be using them in the wing. I have another idea I'd like to try.