Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - sadly a kitfox is down

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

sadly a kitfox is down

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

eskflyer(at)lvcisp.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:25 am Post subject: sadly a kitfox is down

Just read on the ntsb that a kitfox 4 1200 went down on friday N134U two  peope were on board and did not make it .

 pilot was having fuel problems it says 

 http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20061013X01518&key=1

  

  

  

  

  

 John Perry

 [quote]    

[b]

Michel

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 966
Location: Norway

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:26 am Post subject: sadly a kitfox is down

On Oct 15, 2006, at 4:22 PM, john perry wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Just read on the ntsb that a kitfox 4 1200 went down on friday N134U 

 two peope were on board and did not make it .

 pilot was having fuel problems it says


	


Yes, I learnt about the fatal accident Thursday , as I have "Kitfox" as 

a keyword in Google Alert. But your new link seem to shed more light on 

the accident, John. I looks like the two pilots did what we should 

avoid; try to save the plane by turning back to the runway, and stalled 

in the turn, entering a spin.

May this be a lesson to all of us, once an emergency arises, our 

beloved planes are merely an expendable cushion between us and mother 

earth. I don't know how I would react if this happened to me but, from 

all I read, I believe the best way to safe my, and my eventual 

passenger's life, is to land almost anywhere but straight ahead.

When I was in Germany, one month ago, for the PocketFMS fly-in, we 

assisted a safety conference held by a German aviation safety officer. 

In one example, he took a real airfield and demonstrated what were the 

alternatives in the event of an engine stop under initial climb. His 

opinion was that, for our small aircraft, it was even better to land on 

tree tops, than making the possibly fatal 180 turn.



Our thoughts are, of course, with the family of the victims. May God 

bless them and relief their pain.



Cheers,

Michel

_________________
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200

lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:55 am Post subject: sadly a kitfox is down

John,



Thanks for the report.  This is indeed bad news.  If the pilot was the 

registered owner, then it is someone I have met as he attended the Cameron 

Park Kitfox fly-in.  I have been unable to find any local news reports of 

the accident.



Attached is a photo of the airplane (N134U) taken by John McBean at the 

Second fly-in.



Lowell

---

N134U.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

104.28 KB

Viewed:

298 Time(s)

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject: sadly a kitfox is down

Michel-

  I thought the straight-ahead landing was the preferred method, as 

opposed to trying to get back to the field...did you misspeak yourself?

Lynn

On Sunday, October 15, 2006, at 12:24  PM, Michel Verheughe wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 On Oct 15, 2006, at 4:22 PM, john perry wrote:

> Just read on the ntsb that a kitfox 4 1200 went down on friday N134U 

> two peope were on board and did not make it .

> pilot was having fuel problems it says

 Yes, I learnt about the fatal accident Thursday , as I have "Kitfox" 

 as a keyword in Google Alert. But your new link seem to shed more 

 light on the accident, John. I looks like the two pilots did what we 

 should avoid; try to save the plane by turning back to the runway, and 

 stalled in the turn, entering a spin.

 May this be a lesson to all of us, once an emergency arises, our 

 beloved planes are merely an expendable cushion between us and mother 

 earth. I don't know how I would react if this happened to me but, from 

 all I read, I believe the best way to safe my, and my eventual 

 passenger's life, is to land almost anywhere but straight ahead.

 When I was in Germany, one month ago, for the PocketFMS fly-in, we 

 assisted a safety conference held by a German aviation safety officer. 

 In one example, he took a real airfield and demonstrated what were the 

 alternatives in the event of an engine stop under initial climb. His 

 opinion was that, for our small aircraft, it was even better to land 

 on tree tops, than making the possibly fatal 180 turn.

 Our thoughts are, of course, with the family of the victims. May God 

 bless them and relief their pain.

 Cheers,

 Michel

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

Aerobatics(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:23 pm Post subject: sadly a kitfox is down

Well said.  I dont have the nerve to pull to Idle at 300 feet after  take off, but I always think of the altitude that I am confident I could at  every takeoff.  

  

 I think 400 feet would possible if a clear approach, if not I want 500 feet  or I am going straight ahead. Period.

  

 I have done quite a few dead stick landings.  Engine off, on  purpose.  The one thing I learned about the KF2, it glides quite well and I  needed a bit higher approach speed than I  first thought.  I  glide at 55 to 60, short final 50 fence 45 at least or flair is tough.   ALWAYS aim quite a bit down the runway and slip to your spot.  Personally,  the KF2 is a great side slipping aircraft.  Normal accent is 350/400 feet  pm in side slip can be well over 1,500. 

  

 My ASI seems  fairly accurate, but doesn't really matter, it  is what indicates on my plane that works for me.  I tried a few a bit  slower and over the fence at 40 and it not would properly flair.  

  

 My CG is on the forward range, I believe it was  28% empty.   Also  what helped  a LOT was closing the gap on the elevator and  rudder. Difference was huge.  Now if I could close the gap on the  ailerons  LOL

  

 In any case, knowing your plane is a great idea, fun to do and  hopefully  makes us safer

  

 Dave  

 KF582

  

  

  [quote][b]

Float Flyr

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

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:48 pm Post subject: sadly a kitfox is down

I did it from about 250' on  floats one day.  Just dropped the nose real fast and made a good  landing.  The term chopped the power really doesn't apply to what I did  though, it was more like a normal withdrawal of power.  No way was I  going to flirt with a stall at that altitude.  Turns were out of the  question!  Airspeed didn't drop below 60mph until just before  touchdown.

  

 500'  is one of the  altitudes I was trained to make a 180 turn into the final flare.  That's Ok  when the landing spot is directly below you and you have decent flying speed to  begin with.

  

  

 

Noel [quote]   

   --

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

janderson412(at)hotmail.c
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:07 pm Post subject: sadly a kitfox is down

The way to try this is do it at 3000', I set up in a steep climb at 60kts 

high power to simulate t/off. Then snapped the throttle and held the nose up 

for a second or two to simulate human responce delay to test the effect. The 

nose dropped and the a/c just squashed and as soon as I lowered the nose the 

speed built. John A.

From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yah.ca>

Reply-To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

To: <kitfox-list(at)matronics.com>

Subject: RE: sadly a kitfox is down

Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:17:06 -0230



I did it from about 250' on floats one day.  Just dropped the nose real fast

and made a good landing.  The term chopped the power really doesn't apply to

what I did though, it was more like a normal withdrawal of power.  No way

was I going to flirt with a stall at that altitude.  Turns were out of the

question!  Airspeed didn't drop below 60mph until just before touchdown.



500'  is one of the altitudes I was trained to make a 180 turn into the

final flare.  That's Ok when the landing spot is directly below you and you

have decent flying speed to begin with.



Noel



--

wingsdown(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject: sadly a kitfox is down

For those with a free wheeling prop, add about 400 too 500 FPM extra

sink to your normal for the added drag. It was a real surprise trust me

on that one. Truly sorry for the loss of life and those they left

behind. May we all learn quickly from the ultimate lessons given from

others. I did not know the men, but they will be missed just the same.



Rick 



--

Michel

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 966
Location: Norway

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:38 am Post subject: sadly a kitfox is down

Hello Lynn,



 	  Quote: 	
		   From: Lynn Matteson [lynnmatt(at)jps.net]

 I thought the straight-ahead landing was the preferred method, as 

 opposed to trying to get back to the field...did you misspeak yourself?


	


If you understood it that way, then I surely misspoke myself, because the straight-ahead method is what is recommended by everyone.



Second: Congratulations on your Sport Pilot license. A new life opens itself for you.



Third, I also have a Macintosh and I don't remember Frappr displaying wrongly. I'll check that again this evening. (I am on a PC at work but shttt! don't tell anyone! 



Cheers,

Michel



do not archive

<pre><b><font size  color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">

_________________
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:01 am Post subject: sadly a kitfox is down

Thanks for the congrats, Michel. I've already worn out some sectional 

charts looking for places to go. : )

Here is the quote that I read from you yesterday (Sunday), and copied 

and pasted here:

   "I don't know how I would react if this happened to me but, from all 

I read, I believe the best way to safe my, and my eventual passenger's 

life, is to land almost anywhere but straight ahead."

When I read this, I was sitting here at the computer and a large 

"question mark" suddenly appeared above my head. : )

Lynn

Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200

do not archive

On Monday, October 16, 2006, at 07:37  AM, Michel Verheughe wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Hello Lynn,

> From: Lynn Matteson [lynnmatt(at)jps.net]

> I thought the straight-ahead landing was the preferred method, as

> opposed to trying to get back to the field...did you misspeak 

> yourself?

 If you understood it that way, then I surely misspoke myself, because 

 the straight-ahead method is what is recommended by everyone.

 Second: Congratulations on your Sport Pilot license. A new life opens 

 itself for you.

 Third, I also have a Macintosh and I don't remember Frappr displaying 

 wrongly. I'll check that again this evening. (I am on a PC at work but 

 shttt! don't tell anyone! 

 Cheers,

 Michel

 do not archive

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:28 am Post subject: sadly a kitfox is down

One thing I have found for sure is that if the fuel flow is compromised 

between the header tank and the carburetors,  you will have just enough fuel 

in the carb bowls to get you to about the death altitude before the engine 

stops or loses significant power.  This is important to know.  How do I 

know?



After the last series of posts on the fatal stall spin accident in the South 

East.  I was tracing an incipient fuel smell and found a cracked fuel line 

at one of the carburetors.  It had been cut by the banjo bolt on the right 

carb due to too sharp a turn in the line.  I changed out all the engine pump 

to carb fuel lines and put in new fire shield.  I had one of those neat 

firesheild clamp tighteners and proceeded to clamp the ends per the book, 

RTV and all.  I then went up for a test around the pattern and all was in 

order.



The next morning I went up for a flight and just about 200 ft, the engine 

started running extremely rough.  The first thing I did is punch on the aux 

fuel pump and reduce power.  My first impression was that fuel starvation 

was the problem.  I felt I was too low for my alternate - straight ahead - 

emergency landing point - it is a field a bit to the right of straight 

ahead,but is across some commercial buildings and trees.



To make this short, the engine never quit and it was not like I was heading 

down at best glide, so I initiated the dreaded 180 and came out over the 

runway high enough that a steep side slip was necessary to get down.  I made 

a note in my trip record sheet and my hand writing betrays the adrenaline 

rush I was fighting.  The engine ran fine all the way back to the hangar.



I announced to my wife that I would not fly until I found something that I 

could definitely attribute to the problem.  Everything checked out until I 

removed the new fuel lines and sighted down the bore.  Apparently the fire 

sleeve had relaxed during the night putting pressure on the fuel line, 

essentially crimping them nearly closed.



The point of all this is that you can do everything right, taxi, 

predeparture checks, run up, and even if fuel flow is compromised, all that 

will seem fine.  Taxi to the take off point and go and if the fuel demands 

exceed the fuel flow, the carb bowls will be sucked dry and the bad things 

will start happening just at the point of greatest danger.



Since that time, I am hearing lots of little noises from my engine, I have 

never "heard" before and  am a bit tense during that transition point from 

take off to comfort altitude.



Lowell

dave

Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 1382

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:12 am Post subject: sadly a kitfox is down

Lowell, some good points there and one thing I do  when diagnosing a fuel 

problem before flying it again and everything seems to check out ok  out, is 

tie it down and WOT for 3 mins on the ground. If you have a fuel delivery 

issue it is more than likely  to fail/starve or burp at this testing.



Dave

---

_________________
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

Float Flyr

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

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:52 pm Post subject: sadly a kitfox is down

There is one take off direction on the pond I use to launch.  When the wind

is due west I have to go over a hill that is about 300' high and then about

a mile to the next usable pond for landing.  I hate taking off in that

direction because it cuts my options.  Easterly wind would be worse for

hills and boreal forest but usually an easterly wind here also brings half

the North Atlantic raining down. 



Noel



[quote] --

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

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