How can i keep my kitfox from stalling & spinning in too ????

[Dorsal]

I have one of those in my RV. I have everything hooked up, but for some reason haven't calibrated it yet. Maybe some day, it now has 540hrs.

I know I know I'm being a bit of a Sally but it makes me feel all warm a fuzzy knowing it is there
(no offense meant to anyone actually named Sally)

[rogerh12]

More time in a plane is a good idea, but I am in the building stage and am trying to get all my mods accounted for before covering, so that' really why I am looking for answers and insight. Right now I have a solid design modification for using the VW engine instead of the Rotax and also boosting the gross weight of the plane to 1250 lbs, both of which I understand scares people, but are safe and feasable if done right (which is just a matter of good research and calculations). Speaking of which, can anyone comment on the effect of shifting the CG back on a kitfox 4, with respect to stall charicteristics?
Roger

[Esser]

Roger, what I don't under stand is that you are nervous abtou the idea of your plane spinning but you want to put your CofG BACK. if you ever do enter a spin with an aft CofG you can enter a flat spin that is not recoverable

[SkyPirate]

I'd like to know the name of your DAR,..since we are in the same jurisdiction,..only because if he gives you an AWC with an aft CG,..
and you have a lethal crash,..I want to be able to set the FAA straight and them not puting the blame on the kitfox aircraft.

do like I did,..if your going to alter an aircraft that much,..build your own design,..so if I make a miscalculation,..which I'm pretty sure I won't ,.but there is a chance ,..it is a new design( not configuration),..at least I won't be adding to any bad raps of an existing design.
best of luck to you

Chase

[jamesmil]

hi guys, have been watching this post since it started and would like to put in my 2 cents worth about spins. it has been my experience that an airplane that is easy to enter a spin will be easy to recover from the spin.
a plane used for competition such a decathlon, extra, sky bolt will enter a spin and stop on point with normal control inputs. airplanes in this category have a more forward c/g envelope when flown in the aerobatic catagory then when flown in the normal catagory. i would stay far far away from any aft c/g condition when doing stalls in an aircraft rated in the normal catagory for now you have become a test pilot in unknown territory.
during the flight test phase of my rv7 i decided to do a series of spins after all phases of the stall test were complete. on the first attempt at a spin i missed the stall as the rv wing gives no stall buffet and as soon as the nose drops the wing is flying again so i ended up in a spiral. on the next attempt i was ready for the stall and was more aggressive on the control inputs. my intent was to do a half turn and recover and work up from there. that spin was the most unsettling spin i had ever done in all of my acro flying. the aircraft immediately snaped on its back which i had seen before. but instead of a half turn it took 2 turns to stop the rotation and a 1000' to recover. love my rv but will not spin it again, when in the pattern i all ways keep the nose down especially when slipping it in as a spin below 1000' would be unrecoverable.
look forward to the test phase on the ss7 we'r building but doubt that i will intentionally spin it. but i will do a full series of stalls in all configurations. i think the safest thing a pilot can do is to know his airplane totally and allways have an out. sorry for being so long winded.

[CDE2FLY]

To add my 2 cents on this subject, building a safe and reliable airplane was my main objective while building 725CE. The best way to accomplish this is to build the airplane as close as possible to the factory specs and double/triple check the critical geometry for dihedral, wash out, incidence, alignment of wings and empannage to the fuse etc. I verified the rigging by triangulating measurements from a fixed datum and cross checking with a digital "Smart Level". I also complete the weight and balance twice with calibrated scales to be sure I got the same results each time. Lastly, all control deflections were set to factory specs using the Smart Level. My theory was that the collective knowledge from the many thousands of flight hours that contributed to the design evalution of the Kitfox was far far better than any creative ideas might have to improve on things.

With regards to flying to avoid stall/spins, I experimented extensively during the flight testing phase with the handling characteristics and have found that the stall is generally very gentle and very easy to recover from....however, if the airplane severly is cross controlled close to stall it will drop a wing very quickly. The first time this happened, I was quite surprised after being lulled into the belief that the airplane is so benign it just wouldn't break into a sharp wing drop type stall. That said, mine does recover quickly and will not develop into a spin rotation without intentional control inputs.

I've found the Kitfox 7 to be very easy and forgiving under all but the most intentional attempts to get into trouble. It's no different than any other airplane in that you need to use basic piloting skills to stay out of trouble but again, you would have to be way out of the realm of piloting 101 before things get ugly. Keep the speed up when you're below 1000 feet agl and keep the airplane reasonably coordinated. I generally fly the pattern at 70 mph and slow to 65 on short final which is probably faster than others fly the pattern. This ensures plenty of magin for the unexpected cross wind gust and the airplane bleeds speed very well with the power pulled back. Obviously not great short field technique but most of us fly from GA airports with more than enough runway so I don't mind using 1500 feet in the interest of safety.

[HighWing]

This discussion reminds me of a seminar I took in college. We evaluated a research project and discussed it to death then it was pointed out by the professor that the basic premis of the research was faulty. I would respectfully like to suggest that merely stating that almost 90% of the fatalities were stall and spin has no relevence in a discussion of Kitfox fatalities.

Fixing the airplane is not the answer. I copied selected sections from each of the first several ( latest first) fatal Kitfox accident reports in the NTSB data base. The only editing consists of selecting the sections to cut and paste. I might have missed one, as I simply scrolled trying to idenify any Kitfox. I stopped at the Harter Kitfox as many on us knew him and considered him a good friend. Guys - Gals. The problem is not the airplane, it is almost always us!

Lowell (Excerpts below)

attempting a return to runway maneuver following a loss of power in the takeoff initial climb

flying the experimental homebuilt airplane with a potential buyer for the airplane - 1000 ft. - climbing left turn about 1,000 feet in the air when the airplane suddenly nosed over near vertical

the airplane was about 200 feet above the trees -He observed that the left wing of the airplane was perpendicular to the ground and the ground speed of the airplane appeared to be slow

level out about 200 feet above the runway on initial takeoff climb -change in engine noise - second left turn with an angle of bank exceeding 45-degrees and the witness described the airspeed of the airplane as slow - nose of the airplane was observed to pitch up, the left wing dropped down

low over a reservoir, pull straight up, perform a "barrel roll", reverse direction - 100 to 200 feet agl - straight up and performed an aerobatic "barrel roll" maneuver. The airplane then descended straight down and impacted the edge of the ice-covered reservoir

The airplane took off from runway 14 and after clearing a tree line, it entered a right spin, and vertically impacted a golf course

A farmer located and reported the accident - The 2,200-hour commercial pilot had his last medical certificate denied on March 30, 1998 - Low clouds prevailed throughout the area during the morning of the accident. Ground scars and signatures of the damage were consistent with an in-flight loss of control

the airplane was flying low and slow, about 200 to 300 feet above ground level below a canyon ridge line - as it approached rising terrain, engine power was increased. The airplane attempted to climb above the canyon, then "winged over" and dived, nose first, into the mountainside

After recently finishing the airplane, the pilot conducted some taxi test, made some modifications to the airplane, and then flew it for the first time - pilot had trouble landing the airplane - On the pilot's forth landing attempt, the airplane bounced four times - engine noise increased, and the airplane entered a "very aggressive climb." Pitch angle then reduced to about 10 to 15 degrees, and the airplane turned left crosswind about 300 feet agl. The airplane continued to climb at a "very slow airspeed, and "entered a left bank. Bank angle increased to 60 degrees, and the airplane entered a left spin before impacting the ground - The pilot never held a pilot rating, and had approximately 200 hours of flight experience in ultralight airplanes

as it was getting ready to takeoff at the pilot/owner's private airstrip, and the engine sounded as if it was "missing or sputtering” - as the airplane departed it sounded as if it was loosing power - As it proceeded down the runway, the witness said it started moving to the left and it impacted trees at the end of the runway. The airplane descended and impacting the ground in a thicket of trees, about 200 feet off the departure end of the runway - had removed the previous propeller and installed another, and were embarking on a flight after maintenance - propeller had been set to the low pitch limit

A second pilot in another airplane of the same (experimental, amateur built) type flew in loose formation with the accident aircraft and witnessed the accident - The second pilot said that the pilot's airplane had a heavier engine than most of the type did, and had a "full panel" of instruments and radios and was equipped for instrument flight. The pilot told him that, with the heavier engine and instrumentation, he was "over gross" with himself, baggage, and fuel onboard. He was carrying camping gear and the density altitude at the accident site was approximately 8,000 feet. After takeoff, the pilot was flying below and in front of the second pilot at an altitude that placed him below the canyon walls. The second pilot radioed to him "you should climb," and the pilot radioed back that he was taking pictures. About 1 mile further, it appeared that the pilot started climbing. He was keeping even with gently upsloping terrain ahead and was in no danger at that point. The pilot then made a right turn into a narrow canyon that would take him across a ridgeline toward a scenic canyon. Flying behind him, it took the second pilot a moment to reach the entrance to the canyon and, when he did, he was immediately uncomfortable. Even from his higher altitude the second pilot was barely level with the ridgeline ahead. He radioed to the pilot that he should "do a 180 . . . there is room to your right." At this point he had sufficient space to his right to reverse course. The pilot radioed back words to the effect that he thought he could make it and would proceed ahead. The second pilot radioed that he was turning immediately and that the pilot had plenty of spacing and was clear of terrain. When he started his climbing left turn he last saw the accident airplane below and in front of him, hugging the left canyon wall. It appeared the pilot was setting up to make a right turn out of the canyon. He appeared to be in a climbing attitude. When the second pilot completed his 360-degree turn, he next saw the airplane in a 45-degree right bank as it entered a spin to the right at about 300 feet agl. The spin continued for 2 1/2 turns and the airplane impacted terrain below and a fire erupted. It appeared that the spin slowed and a partial recovery was made just before the impact.

[SkyPirate]

agree 200% with JamesMil amd CDE2FLY,..
PS some nice flying down there around wilmington James, I use to fly out of my back yard just north of Le Juene

[szicree]

There's basically two ways to unintentionally stall:

1. Gradually pull back in small increments so that you don't notice the back pressure.

2. Yank back suddenly due to some form of panic.

The first one is the typical "base to final cross control situation" and the second is the typical "ground is coming up cuz I lost power" deal. Avoid both by simply letting the plane fly. Easier said than done in a panic situation, but the truth remains.

Others have recommended spin training, but once you're in a spin near the ground, you're screwed. The key is to avoid the stall altogether by knowing where the stall occurs. Go out, get some altitude and stall that sucker in every scenario imaginable. Be prepared for spin recovery just in case, but the goal is to learn exactly where the stall is and recover immediately. With a little practice you'll know EXACTLY where the edges of the envelope are.

Trying to stall-proof a Kitfox is a giant waste of time; the time and energy would be much better spent stall-proofing the guy flying it.

[Max]

This is the point of my efforts to try to "idiot proof" my kitfox.

The husband and wife in the crash at the link above were my aunt and uncle. I know very little about flying and came here in hopes of finding answers. My Uncle Jim took me up for my first airplane ride when I was 12...and that was 42 years ago. The information I've found here has been helpful and I have found that in the forum discussion where the accident was announced, the people have been sensitive and compassionate. Please keep in mind that there may be other family members here as well.