I was thinking about my misuse of terminology on my previous post. Obviously, I meant to say angle of incidence, rather than angle of attack. It seems like my Model 1 could use a bit more angle of incidence, since the angle of attack is such that the tail touches first, even with the bigger tires. I've considered doing what TJay suggested, changing the angle of the little wing, I mean the horizontal stabilizer, to decrease the stick pressure in level flight, I just haven't gotten around to it. I'll probably make that adjustment when the fishing season slows down. I have a whole list of things I want to do to it, still. Like stretching the tail...
I have to hold back pressure and hold the nose up. The flaps are already reflexed a little. Can't pull them up any farther. Pulling them down makes the nose go down more, as noted. I ought to try to take a measurement of where the stick is, in flight, and see where that puts the elevator. We could call it a weight and balance issue. Kitfox is known to be nose heavy, commonly, and mine would be one of the best examples of that, with the panel tank, no wing tanks, no battery or header tank behind the seat, and heavier landing gear with bigger tires, on the shortest model. On the other hand, the elevator does what it's supposed to. Just a little better angle on the horizontal stabilizer, or a trim tab, and it would be fine. I'm starting to believe that the wings should have had a little more angle of attack built into them, in the first place, since it commonly touches down tail first, even with a fair amount of flaps bringing down the nose, and the 25" tires. The greater wing twist of my early model also decreases the angle of attack of the wings, overall. I should add that stretching the tail back 10" would resolve any issue my Model 1 might have with weight and balance, or trim.
If all these pictures post, you could stitch them into a nice panoramic. I can't complain about the scenery of the 25 mile radius. I have over fifty hours in the plane, now. Need to knock out some of the other requirements for the license before I go for the check ride. For now, just enjoying the view. Sorry I didn't have the camera level, but I had my eyes on the horizon and my hand out the open door. We had a horrific midair collision nearby, the other day, that claimed seven lives. Always keep your eyes open.
I had been considering the same thing with my model 1. I think 10" sounds about right. My idea was to do that when I put a Phazer motor on it, but then I'd want to stiffen the wings, and then I'd want to strengthen the carry throughs accordingly. Might as well build new wings, with a cleaner airfoil, while I'm doing that. I got to the point that I figured I should probably fresh. Actually, I want to build a clean, composite cruiser. Something to pick up where the Kitfox leaves off, rather than trying to turn it into a Super Cub. Just thinking... But really, I think you have a good idea. Model 2 and later were 7" longer on the fuselage. 10" is probably better. You could try to compensate for the minimal difference in AOA, but it's probably fine, as is. I don't have any trim in mine. It requires constant back pressure on the stick to keep it level. It seems like a little adjustment on the tail, when you lengthen it, would fix that and address the angle of attack issue at the same time.
I'll have a look, when I get the chance, and see if my intake sockets have that bulge. Either way, no big deal, as long as it has a continuous mating surface to seal. It sandwiches the fan shroud, anyway, so it's not like it ever had perfect alignment on the intake ports.
Yes, I have the B gearbox with the standard 2.58:1 ratio. My Powerfin prop has the "B" blades. 66" three blade. I'm pretty happy with it. It tracks nicely and seems to be well-balanced. Lightweight, so no concerns about moment of inertia. Pitch is an easy adjustment with no protractor. Their customer service was top notch, too.
Nice project! I have the original dual carb, single ignition 503 in my Kitfox 1. With full fuel and 200 pounds of people, it climbs at 500 fpm at 57 mph, at 1.5- 2k feet. It cruises 60-65 mph ias at 6,000-6,100 rpm behind a 3 blade 66" Powerfin prop, burning 4 gph. Not a powerhouse, but it feels appropriately powered. No problem flying with 375 pounds of people and full fuel, but I haven't checked the climb rate at gross weight. We probably don't want to know, anyway. I like the simplicity of the air-cooled engine.
Landing at the grass strip, last night. Besides me, there were also some mosquitos landing at the same time. They got slapped, but the camera got turned sideways in the process. I sure like that smooth grass.
It's funny you should mention that, Jim. We were just talking about that, last night. I wonder how many people do give up before they get to fly it. More than half, I'd guess. I definitely want to encourage anyone who's working on one of these planes, or considering it, to go for it and see it through to the end. It's been a challenge, but totally worth it. It was probably a rarer situation for me to finish the project easily enough, but then find the biggest discouragement, for me, was getting the right instructor and the schedule and weather to fly it. It was all worth it.
I'm near Kenai, AK. Great place to fly. I spread my wings a little and got most of the cross country dual instruction out of the way, today, with a nice flight down to Homer. You're just up north in the valley somewhere, aren't you?