Activity Stream

Yep, you're right. I tend to go overboard on the straps whenever I trailer stuff though, seen too many heartaches twisted up in a ball off the side of the road. I don't skimp with tie downs and axle bearing grease... a little extra time upfront can save a s#it ton of time and $$$.

I wouldnt be afraid to do a little beef up in a few key areas and give yourself a lot more weight carrying capacity without much worries.  Mine says 1085 but I have been over 1300 more than once... Other than a little slower on the climb out, and the fact that it was a bit on the tail heavy side needing a bit of forward stick (read extended baggage and just how much you can load in it) she flew fine.  I am damn sure not going to be pulling 4 gs at that weight, but I was not too worried about it in slightly bumpy air.

Avid and KF pods were different size and shapes. Pics > http://www.avidfoxflyers.com/index.php?/topic/1444-avid-flyer-cargo-pod-pictures/

One thing for sure, both of those 'bomb pod' style carriers and Brian's custom carrier are a whole lot lighter than the large KF cargo container. Looks like that pig weighs in at a whopping 25lbs.!

OK guys I know that I cant make it this year, but if Brett isn't going to step up and host it, what say ye that we do it.  I will kick in some good money help fund it.  Who wants to run the grill?  Just kicking this idea around if any of you fine folks are interested.

For those of you who have attended in the past, how many showed up on the average?

Leni, I guess I shouldn't have brought up the baggage idea until I had more figured out. It was mainly just to say that I'm not planning to have only a stock baggage area. I probably won't have a ton of useful load, but I might want to stick some light weight bulky stuff in there like some sleeping bags or something.

Larry, my plane's got the tail extended 16". I'm not planning on doing any more stretching at this point, but I'm curious about the stretch right behind the cockpit. What are the advantages over the stretch back by the tail? Or, is this done in addition to the stretch at the tail?

I would bet that the time to hook up the tow bar and fold wings etc is on par with using my winch to pull it on the trailer and fold wings.  plus I dont mind pulling it down the road on the trailer.

I've got a Kitfox one that isn't doing me any good, I'd part with.

 

It won't fit your Avid, though…  

I modified the tow bar that came with my KF3 to fit my KF4, it was a very easy mod. Probably can be adapted to an Avid too, just move the (4) tangs and match drill to the fuse. Even if you can't weld, you could probably make something work with a bit of angle iron and a handful of bolts.

FWIW, the ass end of my KF4 was much heavier than my KF3 and I was not comfortable using the tow bar to move my KF4. I only needed to move a few miles but I did the shoulder crawl with teeth clenched, fingers crossed and flashers blinking the whole way. Certainly quicker than putting on and lashing your plane to a trailer, but think I'll stick with the trailer. 

Wanna bet a nickel they are/were the same design?  Maybe off the same mold?  There was lots of incest back in the day that wasn't admitted between KF and Avid...

The D.I.Y. plans...

Returning the favor for showing me Avid once offered a cargo pod too.   

I stand corrected. Thanks for the information.

This mod originally came about to facilitate the install of a Subaru motor. (I think)

I believe that even though a Continental Cxx is heavy, it could be a good match to the plane.

What would make it a real winner would be to have the extended fuselage modification done first. This adds 15" to the back of the fuselage just behind the cabin. It will allow for a better balance without the need for ballast in the tail.

well if you share details, it may be a great idea.. or it could be one that someone had already tried and has input on what they would different and why.  I really am not too sure that much more could be done to these planes that has not been done before.  I don't like running a biasply tire when I can get a smooth riding radial for a few bucks more

I love my extended baggage and would not trade it for anything.. 

Well, I remember you mentioned how nice it was having a large baggage area when I first posted about my project. So, I'm planning to have a larger than stock baggage compartment, but it should weigh a lot less than what was in the plane, and be much closer to the CG... Don't know if I want to share details yet though in case the idea is a flop 

I love my extended baggage and would not trade it for anything.. Other than maybe making it out of kidex instead. Plus a little weight in the tail will help you. A buddy has the c90 in his tcrate and it's a one flip wonder. I don't think I have ever seen him have to flip it more than once. It is a bugger on floats sometimes though. You can get 100 +hp out of it pretty easy.

I think on a stretched fuse with a climb prop it will perform every bit as good as Randy's fat avid, and that is pretty damn impressive if you ask me.

If its stock length then keep it light as possible in the nose.  If its stretched, then subies and other aircraft engines are viable.  I know there are plenty of guys with a subie in a stock frame, but I bet they dont fly as good as a light one.  What is your mission?  low and slow STOL work or ranging out CC ?  what your mission profile is will steer you towards an engine choice.

 

FWIW, I am trying to talk Bob into stretching his KF IV and putting a tuned up C90 in the nose.  A little work here and there and he will basically have an experimental Tcrate that will fit his mission profile perfectly.

 

This was pretty much my thinking. I put some more details in a new thread here:

http://www.avidfoxflyers.com/index.php?/topic/2807-continental-in-avid-mk-iv/

Chris raised some really good points. I don't think he knew some of the details about my project (that it was stretched, or that I was considering the smaller Continentals for instance). His points are still very valid though. Good food for thought.

I started another thread asking about real world Avid empty weights because I was concerned about my empty weight if I go with a Continental engine that is heavier than the plane was designed for. The question of the trade offs of using a heavier engine came up, so I thought it might be good to start a thread on the subject. It might be interesting to others too, or people searching the archives in the future.

The other thread about empty weight: http://www.avidfoxflyers.com/index.php?/topic/2805-empty-weights/

I don't want to come off sounding too defensive about my plan to use a Continental, but I have put quite a bit of thought into it. Also, everyone's situation is different, and the trade offs that work for one person might not be right for someone else. I know the Continental won't be the most popular choice of engine for most people. I have to decide if I will be happy with the trade offs when all is said and done, and I have a finished airplane.

All that being said, I'm at an early enough stage that I could still change my plan (I'm only part way down the Continental road at this point), so I'm open to other peoples thoughts. If I do put a Continental on the front of my plane, I want to do it with my eyes wide open to all of the potential negative aspects.

I'll give a little background on my thinking. When I bought the partial kit, the previous owner had already lengthened the fuselage by 16". His plane had been to put an O-200 on. In addition, he had added extensive sheet metal to the area behind the seats that extended most of the way back on the tail to make a huge baggage compartment. In addition to this, he had built the wings to be "convertible" from speed wings to long wings with removable tip and flaperon extensions. also, I measured the washout on the wings that he had already built, and they had slightly over 2" of washout on the short wings alone.

This whole thing seemed like a recipe for hugely overweight Avid with poor performance. I basically considered the wings a write off, and decided I would build new ones. Having the stretched tail made me think that a smaller Continental might be a decent fit, and might work with my budget. My first thought was an A-75 with no electrical. This is about the lightest Continental that would be in the right HP range. My thinking was that it should perform like a 582 powered Avid that's carrying some extra weight.

The more I got to thinking about it, I wondered if I would regret not having an electrical system. I am also considering a C-85 with lightweight accessories. I already have a flanged crankshaft that will work for either engine. In any case, I am planning to keep the airframe as light as possible (a tall order I know) because I know I am already going to be suffering from having more weight than what was intended.

Anyway, any additional information would be welcomed and appreciated, and better information leads to better decision making.

Luke D.

Edit: forgot to add that I've already removed all of the extra weight that the previous builder added that was not stock. More weight saving ideas are in the works.

If its stock length then keep it light as possible in the nose.  If its stretched, then subies and other aircraft engines are viable.  I know there are plenty of guys with a subie in a stock frame, but I bet they dont fly as good as a light one.  What is your mission?  low and slow STOL work or ranging out CC ?  what your mission profile is will steer you towards an engine choice.

FWIW, I am trying to talk Bob into stretching his KF IV and putting a tuned up C90 in the nose.  A little work here and there and he will basically have an experimental Tcrate that will fit his mission profile perfectly.

Based on your question yesterday which was worded slightly differently than today, I wrote the following long winded reply. When I tried to post it, the site was down. I was able to click "back" and copy it to word pad so I could post it when the site came back up. Now that it is back up the question is a bit different (not stating your intended engine any more), but I will past in yesterday's reply anyway:

My MKIV w/582 weighed in empty at 587lb with full oil and no fuel. Empty CG was near the forward limit because the 582 is right at the max engine weight the airframe was designed to accommodate..

One of my friends has a MKIV w/80hp 912. He has kept it pretty light (relatively) at around 635lb, but this or even my 582 MKIV above are not light with respect to the wing loading on the original A, B, and C models (same wing size and shape)

Another friend has a stretched MKIV with 80hp 912 and he falls in the 670 range. That's not due to the stretch. It's due to the fact that he is one of those guys that if a little is good more is better. Everything on his plane is nice but exceedingly robust. He has learned his lesson and is working on a long term diet to bring his empty weight down. It performs well, but you can definitely tell the difference between it and the 635 LB plane.

Luke I know you don't know me and I don't want to start a war or make any enemies or come off as a know it all. However, if its not too late I urge you not to go with a continental or Lycoming engine. They are awesome engines and I understand the draw to use one. Avid designed a plane for these engines, the Magnum. I have one and LOVE it! But it has increased wing area, increased gross weight and different weight distribution to accommodate the larger engine.

The original Avids were just not designed for an engine that heavy. You will end up having to put significant additional weight in the tail of the plane just to counter the heavy engine. The plane you end up with will not perform like the Avid was intended to perform and feel. You will always be flying at gross weight.

Avids will fly at gross weight just like any other plane will. There are plenty of times you will fly at gross weight even in a very light Avid, like when going camping and so forth. But you will never be able to go camping because you and half a tank of fuel will put the plane near gross. If you never knew the difference that might be fine...just the way it is. But if you've flown and gotten used to the plane at gross and then suddenly switched to solo with half a tank of fuel in a plane that has 600LB of useful load, the experience is almost spiritual. You would be blown away and always be flying as light as possible except when carrying baggage to go somewhere.

I helped a good friend build a KF5. He was obsessed with air cooled traditional engines and used a 100hp 0-200. He ended up selling the plane because he was disappointed in the performance. It required something on the order of 20lb in the tail just to make forward limit W&B. While it flew nicely and was quite fast, it was a dog compared to another friend who had the same KF5 with just an 80 HP Rotax. The planes weren't in the same league of fun and overall performance even with the 20 hp difference. The 100 HP plane was faster, but in every other respect there was no comparison.

Please take my comments as input for consideration and please don't take offence. I have no stake in the game other than relaying my experience and wishing everyone end up in the best plane they can for the effort they put in.  

Chris

When you sign up for a new account, please check the SPAM folder in your email.  The forum software will automatically send you an email when you register that you have to click the link to complete the USER part of the registration.  I get a lot of emails telling me that they can't log in. The forum software will not notify me that I need to approve a new member UNTIL that new member clicks the validation link in the email. I try to look at my control panel every couple of days to see if there are pending registrations, and if they are I will take care of it, but I don't always see the pending registrations until the new user clicks the validation email.

Well guys, thanks to the multiple hackings we have had here, I will now require that when you sign up I will shoot you an email asking why you would like to join the site what you fly etc.  This is to try and keep the hackers out of the site and keep it open for all of you guys.  I know it may seem a little intrusive, but I wont ever email you again asking any personal questions.. well, unless your a smoking hot blond with a nice plane that loves to hunt and fish, if your a bird hunter, I may ask for pictures of your dog and what kennel the dog was trained at.  I take my bird hunting seriously

Please don't be offended by a few simple questions, its for the best for the site.

While it is a pain in the butt for me to approve all new members manually, its the steps that have to be taken to keep the site up and running as I am about done with hacks and the hassles of them.

No thanks, I have the site up and running 99% of the time.. I dont need her to knock it down to 25% with only partial functionality 100% of the time

Today sitelock reports that we are 100% free of malware or security issues... just the way I like it.  I hope it stops future attempts at highjacking the site.  I will keep an eye on bandwidth usage as that is normally the first clue that we got highjacked and some camel jockey is using our server to back door other websites.

I started a thread sometime ago hoping to collect W&B info for Kitfox model 4's.

My info is there > http://www.avidfoxflyers.com/index.php?/topic/1606-kf-4-1200-wb-comparison/