foxworker

Thanks for your reply Maj., I must correct you on one point. The wood grain does not only run vertically, that would be impossible as it is 11 ply. I'm not going to argue about the hangars; the ply ones are fine in my opinion as long as they have the correct gusset joint and have been properly sealed. I am here to help people with advice and possibly help with re-pairing or refurbishing their 'fox wings, not including the ailerons. I have the only existing set of specs. for the wings as I wrote them and I also know the whereabouts of all the wing and associated components drawings, the originals. The biggest problem faced by 'fox owners is that in the case of an accident the spars are damaged, obtaining new ones is pretty much impossible and to get someone to reproduce them is very unlikey being that they're for certified aircraft. My best advice to owners is be very carefull when landing (especially the 'draggers), hangars and all other parts are replacable, the spars are not. cheers paul

Hi Maj. I believe ther are over 5000 Kitfox's flying with much the same set-up (excluding the spars), and I believe (from their website) there have not been any inflight structural failures. As I've pointed out to Mr Bell from RAA, I do not believe the design is the problem. You've stated that there was no evidence of wood rot, and that the hangars broke on impact which is not surprising. If you were to have the same landing and impacted with the same force or greater having had the al. hangars installed, the damage may be more substantial, as the aluminium hangars will withstand the force, but somthing else has to give. I have a friend whose 'fox has had one outboard hangar replaced with the al. type and he is concerned that if for any reason the wooden hangars were to snap landing or in flight, he would be left with the aileron hanging on at one point only which would have disasterous results. It is my opinion that earlier models 21. 22. 22a, may need inspections carried out on the junction at the hanger brackets/trailing edges to check the epoxy glue joint. This glue joint (either side of the hangar) needs to be formed into a gusset shape and faired into the rib and trailing edge so that water cannot get between the epoxy and the timber. The whole joint has to be sealed after that with a 2-pak polyurethane sealer, at least 2 coats. Personally I believe that the wooden hangars are fine if they are maintained properly and inspected regularly (more so if they are not undercover). I'd like to know about the accidents you speak of as I'm not sure they were all caused by aileron failure. One was caused by lift strut failure, not sure about the other two. I do not believe that all foxes should be grounded and and have the hangar mod carried out, I don't believe there is justification to do so and I think it would be a huge expense to owners of these aircraft. The approved timber repair is fine as long as it is carried out properly. Thanks for your response and for asking for my opinion, appreciated. paul

Hi Mat, I'm in Brisbane, northside.

If I can be of any assistance to anyone with respect to skyfox wings, repairs, rebuilding etc. feel free to ask me any questions. I built pretty much all of the Gazelle wings, updated and re-wrote the specs. for them, and know them inside out. Also have access to the covering process and the fellow who did the covering in the factory. Repairing 'fox wings including hangar brackets, trailing edge sections, epoxy joints, drag braces etc. isn't rocket science however if you're going to do it yourself and you're not an L2, you need the correct info. and the correct proceedures on how to go about it. I've read some pretty disturbing comments written by people fixing their wings obviously not really knowing what they're doing. I am happy to help anyone who is prepared to listen and do it properly. cheers.

I am tiring of this, I feel it's getting a little un-professional. So, I'm going to sign off after these comments. Point 1., Lame's DO NOT CERTIFY WORK, they sign off work performed by the technician eg.Ame. Certification is a different issue involving regulations and a whole heap of legal stuff; 'twas a frustratingly long painful experience for the owners of the Skyfox company at the time. Point 2., I have not and will not sign off ANY ga aircraft;I do not have the legal authority.However, I do have authority to sign off Ra-Aus registered Skyfox wing/s, with-out a Lame. I am able to legally repair, restore and build new Skyfox wings G.A. or Ra-Aus, in a friends casa approved workshop which also has APMA.Any work there is signed out under his approval, using his approval and APMA.I definately do not want to see any Lame or L2 sign off ANYTHING unless they are highly competant in all aspects of the task at hand, particularly with the type of structure Skyfox wings are. Point 3., It is my opinion,and I believe that of Ra-Aus,that holders of pilot certificates must complete a human factors course to maintain there flying privilages, I say extend that to all aviation personel who are involved in any management role,supervisory role,or training role. It would benefit the aviation industry enormously and would undoubtably increase safety,communications and importantly for those operations that seem to be always behind the 8 ball, it can dramatically increase productivity ,efficiency and most importantly, worker moral. If a Lame/ame, L1,2 or 3, manager,supervisor,leading hand, or anyone involved in the aviation industry, in a leadership role feels that they no longer need to listen to another (eg. manager to an insubordinate),then that individual should relieve themselves of their position and join the motor body building industry where that attitude appears to be rife,(my apologies to the people who are the backbone of such companies,the shop floor workers). Safety conscious, maturity, responsibility, accountability, ability to listen well, and common sense, all great attrbutes for anyone interested in an aviation career. Arrogance, mediocracy, holier than thou attitude, poor listening skills, poor communication skills, poor hand skills; all negative attributes, all damaging and destructive to the aviation industry. Shags, if you're serious, step one would be to contact the admin. at Aviation Australia, Brisbane, have a chat about the options on offer, and make a decision. Mechanical, avionics or structural. Cert.4 in aeroskills; will take approx. 9 months fulltime, austudy approved. Do NOT believe everything you are told about the great money you can earn, it is not particularly highly paid work, (unless you're a lame). It is however a fascinating industry to be involved in never the less. bye.

Nit picking,dear,o'dear. Again arrogance and big ego's;absolutly no room in aviation for such people. You get good doctors and bad doctors; good lame's and bad lame's. By the way,if one has little knowledge of the underlying structure that they are to about to re-sheet, then one should remove him/herself from the task at hand and allow an experienced,capable person to do the job. Also, lames sign off; certifying is another matter all together. It's about safety, responsibility, and a very high standards of workmanship;these are flying machines NOT motor cars. No room for damn ego's.cheers.

Look at it from this point of view;would you positively sign off aircraft maintenance or repair work you have performed, on an aircraft your dear mum's about to fly around Australia in? If you can't absolutely answer "yes" to that,stay away,whether you have qualifications or not. I have approval from Ra-Aus tech manager to rebuild and refurbish skyfox wings. I've recently finished a Skyfox 22a starboard wing,leading edge spa replacement and trailing edge refurb. There was a previous repair carried out by a lame that was very poorly done and required rework. So much for relying purely on qualifications; some aircraft work requires very specialised skills and plenty of experienced. Over 3000 hours building Skyfox wings in the factory and approx. 1200 hrs manufacturing associated parts more than qualifies me to repair and rebuild these structures. You are right however,if one has qualifications,above average theoretical knowledge, being unfamiliar with the aircraft shouldn't be a major problem. In saying that, some people tend to have largish egos which unfortunatily greatly diminishes their ability to listen to others;the consequences being poor workmanship and potential disaster down the track. Myself and a student on board, were nearly seriously injured in a light aircraft crash,many years ago now,that never should of happened. A well qualified ex. Raaf trained airworthiness manager failed to take the advice from an apprentice at the time,(referring to a control column problem), and hey presto. bang, I was the next unfortunate person to fly the plane. Arrogance is the enemy of the L2,ame or lame.

Sorry Peter, Skyfox (initially Hedaro International) died a bit over a decade ago now, after producing around 180 aircraft. Of those around 100 were t 'draggers and 80 nosewheels. The IP eventually went over seas. It really was a magic little company.cheers.

Hi Frank, and thanks for the welcome. I havn't flown a Drifter; once flew a 582 Chinook 11, hmmm. cheers.

Thanks for the kind words decca; when was your Gazelle born, and what colour is it? Have you had any trouble with your wings? cheers

Hi Wigg, There is nothing wrong with the original timber Skyfox factory approved repair. As I read all the comments about the hangers, I sense some people think that the material ie. the timber, birch 11 ply (from memory) is the problem. It's not and in my opinion never has been. I do have the original repair drawing, sorry a photocopy of, and if the repair is carried out by a skilled hand, and also done with a emphassis on attention to detail , then a successful long life repair can be made. It is not a particularly difficult repair, just needs to be done well. The final process in the structural side of the repair of sealing is no less important than the actual repair itself. This is where alot of the earlier wings lacked.

Hi fellow aircraft people, Just taking a bit of a look around. I'm a bit of a Skyfox fan, prefer the 'dragger to the Gazelle. Flew the first VH 'dragger, low tail -LRF, the proto Gazelle -CAL, and a few more. Love a good 3 point with full fan, loathe wheel-ons, sorry all wheel- on lovers. Would love to own a fox dragger one day. cheers.