Kitfox-Archive.digest.vol-ac
December 05, 2003 - December 18, 2003
From: "Ron Carroll" <RonCarr(at)qwest.net>
To:
Subject: Kitfox-List: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon problrm -
Now Prop info needed
>
> Well, I think my problem has finally been solved, and the plane seems to
be flying much better. The problem was caused by a delaminated right
flaperon. By that I mean that the foam 'ribs' inside the flaperon were
disintegrated by gasoline that had entered the flaperon. When the flaps
were deployed the spar rotated, but apparently the strong wind forces on the
surface of the flaperon prevented it from rotating as much as the spar.
>
> I opened up the flaperon, replaced the ribs with new foam ribs that are
protected with epoxy resin. I also made a wood rib for the inboard end of
the flaperon, then glued that to the spar & skin, and then screwed the top &
bottom skins to it. The flaperon system is now very snug, and operates as
intended.
>
> HOWEVER, the plane still has a strong tendency to roll to the right at all
times (not just when the flap are deployed). I am nearly certain that this
is caused by the washout of the wings. According to the plans, the washout
should be done initially so that each wing matches the other. The plans
then go on to say that actual flight should then determine if the washout
should be fine tuned to suit the particular plane. That is where I am now.
This afternoon I tweaked the lift struts in an attempt to even out the lift.
Because of the weather I may not be able to test it for a couple of days,
but I am now optimistic.
>
> Now that I feel the plane will be alright, I will go ahead and buy a new
3-blade prop for it. I would like to ask for opinions regarding various
3-blade props on the market. I don't want to make a mistake now, I'd rather
take advise from those much more experienced.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ron Carroll
> KF3 - Oregon
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott McClintock <scott_mcclintock(at)dot.state.ak.us> |
| Subject: | Re: Warp Drive Prop repair |
Elbie,
Actually, I couple of the list members already contacted them on my behalf.
I should be able to repair the "ding" with some epoxy and a file.
Thanks, I appreciate your (and you other guys) response(s).
-Scott-
RiteAngle3(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Scott,
> Have you called Warp Drive? I had a booth next to them a few years ago at
> OSH or SnF, great guys, and I'm sure they would give you an honest answer. Props
> aren't for messing with!
> Elbie
> EM aviation
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Hammond <kitfox(at)itsys3.com> |
| Subject: | First Flight N913KF |
Following is another, albeit wordy, story of a first flight in a
brand new Kitfox.
12/5/03 - Denver Colorado
The morning has started cold. Temperature is 9 degrees
Fahrenheit as I leave my house at 4:45am to drive to work at
Denver International Airport. I am a supervisor in the FAA
approach control. I need to get to work by 5:30 to set the
arrival flow for all the airliners inbound from the east coast.
But, my mind is elsewhere. I am thinking of the Kitfox Series 6
that I have been building for the last two years. It is sitting
in a hangar at FTG Front Range airport - about seven miles away
from DEN and tucked into a corner below the Class B airspace.
N913KF had been issued her airworthiness certificate on 11/10/03.
About five hours were showing on the Hobbs meter as a result of
engine runup and taxi testing. Would today be the day? I felt
that the aircraft was ready, but was I? I had never been
airborne in a Kitfox. I have logged over 4500 hours in the last
27 years, but all of it was in production aircraft. I have been
keeping current in an Aeronca Champ while I have been building
the Kitfox. I felt capable. I had consulted with my EAA chapter
flight advisor. I had confidence in the aircraft construction
and rigging after the taxi tests, but that first flight in a new
aircraft is an awfully big step.
At the approach control, I check the weather, NOTAMS, and airport
conditions before setting the day's arrival rate. It is good
VFR, only a slight breeze from the southeast, and all the runways
and taxiways are open. I call Denver Center and tell them to
give me a flow for four runways, visual approaches, land south
and east with no restrictions. I can almost see the Traffic
Management Coordinator smile - even though he is 60 miles away in
Longmont Colorado. I have just given him the permission to throw
160 airplanes per hour at me and my approach controllers. No
other airport in the world can eat aluminum like DEN can! The
folks at Denver Center know that it will be impossible for them
to find enough aircraft to meet this demand, but they will
certainly come close for short periods. I can only imagine how
the airlines' bean counters will be smiling - along with the
30,000 people that will travel through DEN today without any
delays or cancellations. I think to myself - gee, this decision
made by me, a lowly government employee, will have a positive
economic impact on a whole bunch of people today. I hope that
they keep paying their taxes so I can keep drawing my salary. I
also hope to make it hard on the flight crews to try and use the
excuse "Ladies and gentlemen, we have an ATC delay...." There's
nothing like good VFR to make all out lives easier. And these
light winds are favorable for a taildragger.... Enough, back to
business.
The first morning inbound rush is down and at the gates when I am
joined in the Tracon by another supervisor. Would he mind if I
skipped out today and went flying? He is agreeable, but the 9
degree temperature makes the thought a little uncomfortable. I
decide to get a session of proficiency time working final
approach during the next rush. MAybe it will warm up.
I key up 123.85, set my radar scope the way that I like it and
buckle in. Final approach can be like a roller coaster ride.
There are times of great buildup followed by a wild ride until it
ends. Unlike a video game, you can't hit pause and you can't ask
anyone to stop. Just like they tell you at the carnival "keep
your hands and feet inside the ride until it comes to a complete
stop." Away we go. "United 44 heavy, approach, reduce speed to
170 then descend and maintain 8,000." "Skywest 7036 turn right
heading 080, traffic two o'clock 3 miles on final a Boeing 737.
Report traffic in sight." "Frontier 583 turn right heading 140,
maintain 170 knots to JETSN, clear for visual approach runway 16
right." "United 1403 contact tower won tree fife point tree
(135.3) So long."
It is a pretty smooth session today. My turns are timely,
spacing is good, the lineup is aesthetically pleasing on the
radar scope. I am feeling pretty self confident. What is the
wind? One six zero at eight - that is a fine wind for a first
flight. I'm outta here! As the last airliners are sent to
tower, I combine my radar position to another controller, sign
for the leave, and drive to FTG. This will be the day after all.
The temperature is now about 35 and N913KF does not protest as I
pull the cowl off and give a preflight as if my life depended on
it, because it does. The airport Crash-Fire-Rescue crew comes to
the hangar at my invitation as I explain what I am going to do,
show them how to work the door latches, and where the master and
ignition switches are located. They offer to stand by for the
flight and I heartily agree. Self preservation has a way of
hedging all bets. Two friends from work drive up to witness the
event. I am not sure if they are here for support or to manage a
betting pool whose outcome is determined by my ultimate success.
The Rotax 912S starts in the cold air, but is reluctant to
smooth out for the first 30 seconds. Finally, it purrs its
cadence and I start the long taxi to runway 17.
By the time I get to the runway, the engine temperatures are
normal and everything feels right. Out come the checklists as I
prepare to make my own personal history. Finally, it is time.
No excuses. In the words of astronaut Gus Grissom I mumble to
myself the test pilot's prayer - "O Lord, please don't let me
f*** up!" The throttle moves forward. Before I can get it to
the stop, the tail has come up. Oh Yah!! Tracking is straight as
the airplane very quickly gets light on the wheels. Now,
according to my script, I am supposed to make note of the
indicated airspeed so that I will have it as a basis later for
the landing approach. I confess, I missed it. By the time I
look down at the airspeed, I am already in the air! Ed Downs was
right - this thing is really a high performance airplane in
disguise. I put the nose in what I consider to be a comfortable
spot for climb and glance at the speed. I am already up to 80
mph. Unfortunately, I have to level off to stay out of the Class
B airspace, but it certainly feels as if it want to keep on climbing.
I fly a rectangular pattern around the airport and check the
control responses. I had only used a very little bit of trim
adjustment from the measured spot detailed in the construction
manual. That was good. Control response incredibly light and
effective - much more so than the Aeronca. Rudder authority is
good. I let go of the stick to see if the wing rigging is
proper. It stays level hands off. "Remember to breathe" the
Flight advisor had told me. I do - through a huge smile. I
think to myself "I built this thing and it is flying!" I am
experiencing no fear, no apprehension, and no desire to return to
earth. But, my flight plan says that I must. After 1/2 hour it
is time to try the first landing.
As I slow in the pattern, the control response feels solid. I'll
land on runway 17. There is no crosswind and the runway is 8000
feet long, so there is no reason to try and put it on the
numbers. I aim for a spot 1500 feet down, carry a little extra
speed until I am in the flare, and close the throttle. I ended
up with the prettiest little three point landing that you've ever
seen. There was no tendency to swerve or fishtail, and with
minimal braking I was at a stop in about 500 feet. I think that
I am in love.
So, now I have 36 minutes of Kitfox time in my log book. I have
thoroughly enjoyed the building and am looking forward to the
flying. My personal euphoria is exhilarating. All is right with
the world. As so may others on this list have stated... Blue Skies.
Bill Hammond
Parker, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JMCBEAN" <JDMCBEAN(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | First Flight N913KF |
Bill,
CONGRATS !!! I'll look forward to flying with you.... Idaho, Colorado,
Arizona... they really are not that far...
It is pretty remarkable when your flying along enjoying the view, listening
to the Rotax choir and feeling how responsive and smooth the controls
feel... then it hits.... I can't believe I built this !!!!
Blue Skies!!
John & Debra McBean
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bill Hammond
Subject: Kitfox-List: First Flight N913KF
Following is another, albeit wordy, story of a first flight in a
brand new Kitfox.
12/5/03 - Denver Colorado
The morning has started cold. Temperature is 9 degrees
Fahrenheit as I leave my house at 4:45am to drive to work at
Denver International Airport. I am a supervisor in the FAA
approach control. I need to get to work by 5:30 to set the
arrival flow for all the airliners inbound from the east coast.
But, my mind is elsewhere. I am thinking of the Kitfox Series 6
that I have been building for the last two years. It is sitting
in a hangar at FTG Front Range airport - about seven miles away
from DEN and tucked into a corner below the Class B airspace.
N913KF had been issued her airworthiness certificate on 11/10/03.
About five hours were showing on the Hobbs meter as a result of
engine runup and taxi testing. Would today be the day? I felt
that the aircraft was ready, but was I? I had never been
airborne in a Kitfox. I have logged over 4500 hours in the last
27 years, but all of it was in production aircraft. I have been
keeping current in an Aeronca Champ while I have been building
the Kitfox. I felt capable. I had consulted with my EAA chapter
flight advisor. I had confidence in the aircraft construction
and rigging after the taxi tests, but that first flight in a new
aircraft is an awfully big step.
At the approach control, I check the weather, NOTAMS, and airport
conditions before setting the day's arrival rate. It is good
VFR, only a slight breeze from the southeast, and all the runways
and taxiways are open. I call Denver Center and tell them to
give me a flow for four runways, visual approaches, land south
and east with no restrictions. I can almost see the Traffic
Management Coordinator smile - even though he is 60 miles away in
Longmont Colorado. I have just given him the permission to throw
160 airplanes per hour at me and my approach controllers. No
other airport in the world can eat aluminum like DEN can! The
folks at Denver Center know that it will be impossible for them
to find enough aircraft to meet this demand, but they will
certainly come close for short periods. I can only imagine how
the airlines' bean counters will be smiling - along with the
30,000 people that will travel through DEN today without any
delays or cancellations. I think to myself - gee, this decision
made by me, a lowly government employee, will have a positive
economic impact on a whole bunch of people today. I hope that
they keep paying their taxes so I can keep drawing my salary. I
also hope to make it hard on the flight crews to try and use the
excuse "Ladies and gentlemen, we have an ATC delay...." There's
nothing like good VFR to make all out lives easier. And these
light winds are favorable for a taildragger.... Enough, back to
business.
The first morning inbound rush is down and at the gates when I am
joined in the Tracon by another supervisor. Would he mind if I
skipped out today and went flying? He is agreeable, but the 9
degree temperature makes the thought a little uncomfortable. I
decide to get a session of proficiency time working final
approach during the next rush. MAybe it will warm up.
I key up 123.85, set my radar scope the way that I like it and
buckle in. Final approach can be like a roller coaster ride.
There are times of great buildup followed by a wild ride until it
ends. Unlike a video game, you can't hit pause and you can't ask
anyone to stop. Just like they tell you at the carnival "keep
your hands and feet inside the ride until it comes to a complete
stop." Away we go. "United 44 heavy, approach, reduce speed to
170 then descend and maintain 8,000." "Skywest 7036 turn right
heading 080, traffic two o'clock 3 miles on final a Boeing 737.
Report traffic in sight." "Frontier 583 turn right heading 140,
maintain 170 knots to JETSN, clear for visual approach runway 16
right." "United 1403 contact tower won tree fife point tree
(135.3) So long."
It is a pretty smooth session today. My turns are timely,
spacing is good, the lineup is aesthetically pleasing on the
radar scope. I am feeling pretty self confident. What is the
wind? One six zero at eight - that is a fine wind for a first
flight. I'm outta here! As the last airliners are sent to
tower, I combine my radar position to another controller, sign
for the leave, and drive to FTG. This will be the day after all.
The temperature is now about 35 and N913KF does not protest as I
pull the cowl off and give a preflight as if my life depended on
it, because it does. The airport Crash-Fire-Rescue crew comes to
the hangar at my invitation as I explain what I am going to do,
show them how to work the door latches, and where the master and
ignition switches are located. They offer to stand by for the
flight and I heartily agree. Self preservation has a way of
hedging all bets. Two friends from work drive up to witness the
event. I am not sure if they are here for support or to manage a
betting pool whose outcome is determined by my ultimate success.
The Rotax 912S starts in the cold air, but is reluctant to
smooth out for the first 30 seconds. Finally, it purrs its
cadence and I start the long taxi to runway 17.
By the time I get to the runway, the engine temperatures are
normal and everything feels right. Out come the checklists as I
prepare to make my own personal history. Finally, it is time.
No excuses. In the words of astronaut Gus Grissom I mumble to
myself the test pilot's prayer - "O Lord, please don't let me
f*** up!" The throttle moves forward. Before I can get it to
the stop, the tail has come up. Oh Yah!! Tracking is straight as
the airplane very quickly gets light on the wheels. Now,
according to my script, I am supposed to make note of the
indicated airspeed so that I will have it as a basis later for
the landing approach. I confess, I missed it. By the time I
look down at the airspeed, I am already in the air! Ed Downs was
right - this thing is really a high performance airplane in
disguise. I put the nose in what I consider to be a comfortable
spot for climb and glance at the speed. I am already up to 80
mph. Unfortunately, I have to level off to stay out of the Class
B airspace, but it certainly feels as if it want to keep on climbing.
I fly a rectangular pattern around the airport and check the
control responses. I had only used a very little bit of trim
adjustment from the measured spot detailed in the construction
manual. That was good. Control response incredibly light and
effective - much more so than the Aeronca. Rudder authority is
good. I let go of the stick to see if the wing rigging is
proper. It stays level hands off. "Remember to breathe" the
Flight advisor had told me. I do - through a huge smile. I
think to myself "I built this thing and it is flying!" I am
experiencing no fear, no apprehension, and no desire to return to
earth. But, my flight plan says that I must. After 1/2 hour it
is time to try the first landing.
As I slow in the pattern, the control response feels solid. I'll
land on runway 17. There is no crosswind and the runway is 8000
feet long, so there is no reason to try and put it on the
numbers. I aim for a spot 1500 feet down, carry a little extra
speed until I am in the flare, and close the throttle. I ended
up with the prettiest little three point landing that you've ever
seen. There was no tendency to swerve or fishtail, and with
minimal braking I was at a stop in about 500 feet. I think that
I am in love.
So, now I have 36 minutes of Kitfox time in my log book. I have
thoroughly enjoyed the building and am looking forward to the
flying. My personal euphoria is exhilarating. All is right with
the world. As so may others on this list have stated... Blue Skies.
Bill Hammond
Parker, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JMCBEAN" <JDMCBEAN(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | mechanical elevator trim |
Lmar,
Which aircraft ???
Blue Skies!!
John & Debra McBean
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lmar
Subject: Kitfox-List: mechanical elevator trim
Does anyone use a Bowen cable mechanical elevator trim system. it should be
real easy, but after replacing my inner cable twice and the inner and outer
once, the inner cable broke again with less that 25 hrs. I think that the
last brakeage was helped along previously by a pair of pliers. The trim tab
has always been very difficult to move full range when all attached.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JMCBEAN" <JDMCBEAN(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | insurance price adjustment |
Kurt,
I use AOPA and the insurance is through AIG. They didn't have a problem
adding someone to the insurance as a pilot. Still can't carry them as a
passenger.
I agree that the insurance is well out of control. More to come on that
issue.
Blue Skies!!
John & Debra McBean
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of kurt schrader
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: insurance price adjustment
I tried to add my friend "the brave pilot" who did the
first test flight on my plane. The insurance company
said that all other people, beside myself, are
considered "passengers" until the 40 hrs are complete,
thus illegal and uninsured people.
The first 30 minutes on my plane were totally
uninsured. Until they will reasonably insure me in
it, I'll take the risk rather than reward them. Other
opinions welcome.
Kurt S.
--- JMCBEAN wrote:
>
>
> Charles,
> You may want to look at adding your friend
> as a named pilot on the policy.
> If he has 600+ hrs in type then it shouldn't effect
> the insurance much if
> any.
>
> Blue Skies!!
> John & Debra McBean
> "The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On
> Behalf Of charles b cook
> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: insurance price adjustment
>
>
>
> Just thought I would throw this out.
> Some of the insurance companies will give you a 9%
> rebate as soon as you
> fly the first 20 hrs off your aircraft. YOU must
> call them for this
> rebate. There is another 9% when you have 160 hrs in
> type of aircraft.
>
> If you are building and looking for insurance one
> thing that caught my
> attention is some of the policies do not cover a
> test pilot other than
> the owner. Sounds strange but I have a friend who is
> willing to help on
> the initial flying who has 600+ hrs in kitfoxes and
> if I elected for him
> to do a test flight he is not covered until the 40
> hrs are flown off.
> Liability coverage would be in place but no hull or
> medical and life.
> Charles Cook
> 363kf
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon problrm - |
Now Prop info needed
Gary,, what was the cost of the strut covers,, shipping and all..I assume
they came from skystar or are they aftermarket type things. Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Algate" <algate(at)attglobal.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon
problrm - Now Prop info needed
>
> Ron
>
> My Lite2 always flew right wing low and after recommendations by the List
I
> fitted a balsa wedge under my left flaperons and this helped a lot. I also
> adjusted my struts to give my right wing a higher angle of attack and this
> fixed it but I didn't like the unequal setup.
>
> More recently I purchased the plastic airfoiled covers for my lift struts
> and I found that by just angling them slightly like ailerons the problem
was
> fixed. Ie) on the right (low) wing I have the airfoil lift strut with a
> positive angle of attack and on the left wing (high) I have a slightly
> negative angle of attack.
>
> Plane flies perfectly true now
>
> Gary Algate
> Lite2/582
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Carroll
> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon
> problrm - Now Prop info needed
>
>
> Jim, thanks for your suggestions regarding the washout & the prop. As
Jeff
> reminds me, I forgot to say that my KF3 is 582 powered. It makes a big
> difference and I should have mentioned it before.
>
> Your comment that I had said the plane used to fly balanced, I don't
believe
> I said that. As long as I've had it, it flown screwy. Now its only
trying
> to dip the right wing all of the time.
>
> Tell me more about adding a wedge to the drooping wing. Things like
size,
> and exactly where you put it, and how you attached it after determining
what
> worked. This would be a neat way to go. Are you sure I should put it on
> the bottom of the wing that wants to rise??? It would seem this would
make
> it rise more, but what do I know?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Ron Carroll
> KF3/582 Oregon
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: jimshumaker
> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 8:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon
> problrm - Now Prop info needed
>
>
>
>
> Ron
>
> Forget the washout. The wing is so stiff it can hardly be adjusted.
> Besides, you said that the plane used to fly balanced. I suspect that
> the
> flaperons are now just very slightly asymetrical. All you need to do is
> balance them with a trim tab or wedge. It is easy to test by placing a
> wedge of material on the bottom rear of the wing that wants to rise.
This
> can be stuck on with double sided tape. A small trim tab on one side
will
> also work.
>
> Jim Shumaker
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Carroll" <RonCarr(at)qwest.net>
> To:
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon
problrm
> -
> Now Prop info needed
>
>
> >
> > Well, I think my problem has finally been solved, and the plane seems
to
> be flying much better. The problem was caused by a delaminated right
> flaperon. By that I mean that the foam 'ribs' inside the flaperon were
> disintegrated by gasoline that had entered the flaperon. When the flaps
> were deployed the spar rotated, but apparently the strong wind forces on
> the
> surface of the flaperon prevented it from rotating as much as the spar.
> >
> > I opened up the flaperon, replaced the ribs with new foam ribs that
are
> protected with epoxy resin. I also made a wood rib for the inboard end
> of
> the flaperon, then glued that to the spar & skin, and then screwed the
top
> &
> bottom skins to it. The flaperon system is now very snug, and operates
as
> intended.
> >
> > HOWEVER, the plane still has a strong tendency to roll to the right at
> all
> times (not just when the flap are deployed). I am nearly certain that
> this
> is caused by the washout of the wings. According to the plans, the
> washout
> should be done initially so that each wing matches the other. The plans
> then go on to say that actual flight should then determine if the
washout
> should be fine tuned to suit the particular plane. That is where I am
> now.
> This afternoon I tweaked the lift struts in an attempt to even out the
> lift.
> Because of the weather I may not be able to test it for a couple of
days,
> but I am now optimistic.
> >
> > Now that I feel the plane will be alright, I will go ahead and buy a
new
> 3-blade prop for it. I would like to ask for opinions regarding various
> 3-blade props on the market. I don't want to make a mistake now, I'd
> rather
> take advise from those much more experienced.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ron Carroll
> > KF3 - Oregon
> >
> >
>
>
> advertising on the Matronics Forums.
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Now Prop info needed |
Blades measure 31 1/2 inches from clamping groove to tip. Number stamped
near hub end is B745. I don't know why you don't just by a two bladed hub
and use these blades as is. I think 3 bladed props are all overrated. Only
reason for more than 2 blades is to couple more Horsepower to the thrust
stream of air and you don't need that with a 582. An extra blade just
creates more drag than it benifits in thrust. Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Carroll" <RonCarr(at)qwest.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Now Prop info needed
>
> Bob, if you would send me some info on the blades, like length, condition,
model (if there is such a thing), ground adjustable?, etc., so that I can
get prices for the third blade & hub. and have them balance matched.
Because it was used on a 912, I wonder if it would be too much for a 582???
How are these props on a KF/582, do you know?
>
> Someone commented that IVO & Warp 3-blades are better than the 3-blade
GSC, but I'm not sure why.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ron Carroll
> KF3/582 - Oregon
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bob Unternaehrer
> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 4:27 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Now Prop info needed
>
>
<shilocom@c-magic.com>
>
> I have two good blades off a GSC prop that was on a kitfox IV , rotax
> 912,,,, But NO HUB... I'd take $20 each plus shipping for them. Bob U.
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: insurance price adjustment |
<>
I thought that passengers were not allowed untill after the 40 hours,,, thus
insurance would probably be void if carrying a passenger Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "kurt schrader" <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: insurance price adjustment
>
> I tried to add my friend "the brave pilot" who did the
> first test flight on my plane. The insurance company
> said that all other people, beside myself, are
> considered "passengers" until the 40 hrs are complete,
> thus illegal and uninsured people.
>
> The first 30 minutes on my plane were totally
> uninsured. Until they will reasonably insure me in
> it, I'll take the risk rather than reward them. Other
> opinions welcome.
>
> Kurt S.
>
> --- JMCBEAN wrote:
> >
> >
> > Charles,
> > You may want to look at adding your friend
> > as a named pilot on the policy.
> > If he has 600+ hrs in type then it shouldn't effect
> > the insurance much if
> > any.
> >
> > Blue Skies!!
> > John & Debra McBean
> > "The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On
> > Behalf Of charles b cook
> > To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: insurance price adjustment
> >
> >
> >
> > Just thought I would throw this out.
> > Some of the insurance companies will give you a 9%
> > rebate as soon as you
> > fly the first 20 hrs off your aircraft. YOU must
> > call them for this
> > rebate. There is another 9% when you have 160 hrs in
> > type of aircraft.
> >
> > If you are building and looking for insurance one
> > thing that caught my
> > attention is some of the policies do not cover a
> > test pilot other than
> > the owner. Sounds strange but I have a friend who is
> > willing to help on
> > the initial flying who has 600+ hrs in kitfoxes and
> > if I elected for him
> > to do a test flight he is not covered until the 40
> > hrs are flown off.
> > Liability coverage would be in place but no hull or
> > medical and life.
> > Charles Cook
> > 363kf
>
> __________________________________
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JMCBEAN" <JDMCBEAN(at)cableone.net> |
Lets not confuse pumps..... 582 and the 912 use entirely different
pumps.....
Blue Skies!!
John & Debra McBean
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of R & L Ainsworth
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: Fuel pumps
Regarding the posts on Mikuni fuel pump failure modes.My personal experience
has shown another failure mode, apart from the pulse line failure and that
is an internal failure of the pump.
In June 97 I had taken a friend to look at his home and as we were climbing
away thru 700 feet the engine went from 6000 rpm to 5000 rpm for 2-3 second
and then stopped completely .Landed in paddock. No damage.
On inspection of engine found small hole in top of rear piston and rebuilt
top end of engine.
However when the Rotax run in procedure was tried the engine ran rough and
would not rev above aprox 4000 rpm.
After much fiddling/thinking the fuel pump was dis assembled and inspected
with no obvious fault.
Pump refitted with same result.
New pump fitted ,engine breakin completed, no problem.
Conclusions-----Don't count on your engine continuing to run if your pump
fails in this way.
As the engine leaned out it melted the rear piston.We don't have a primer
and I don't know if this would have helped anyway.
Regards
Russell Ainsworth Mod 4 582 New Zealand
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JMCBEAN" <JDMCBEAN(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon problrm - |
Now Prop info needed
Ron,
Example: Fly the aircraft straight and level cruise power.
Holding the wings level with the control stick remove your feet from the
rudders. Does the aircraft yaw left, right or is the ball centered.
Go back to straight and level flight.
Holding the ball centered with your feet release the control stick. Does the
aircraft roll left, right or fly level.
The reason for this exercise is to determine if yaw is causing the roll or
if it's the wing. An aircraft out of rig in the yaw axis can and does create
a turning tendency.
If you have right roll caused by the wing then you can either increase the
angle of the right wing thereby creating more lift and drag or decrease the
angle of the left wing thereby reducing lift and drag.
To increase the lift of the right wing, extend the rod end on the forward
right lift strut only not the rear lift strut. By changing both the front
and rear lift strut you change dihedral of that wing.
Hope this makes sense
This is not an uncommon thing. Cessna has cams in the root section of the
wing to adjust the angle of incidence.
Blue Skies!!
John & Debra McBean
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ron Carroll
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon
problrm - Now Prop info needed
Thanks for the ideas, Gary. I have already adjusted my lift struts to add
lift to the right wing, and remove lift from the left wing. These
adjustments were only slight, so not to have too much difference (if I get
any change at all). By slight, I mean I took made one full turn on each of
the four lift strut adjusters. We're talking only thousands of an inch
each.
My wooden lift strut fairings are already installed, so it would be tough to
change these at this time. I now have a few suggestions that I will play
with, and test fly when the weather clears.
Thanks,
Ron Carroll
KF3/582 - Oregon
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Algate
To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 9:01 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon
problrm - Now Prop info needed
Ron
My Lite2 always flew right wing low and after recommendations by the List
I
fitted a balsa wedge under my left flaperons and this helped a lot. I also
adjusted my struts to give my right wing a higher angle of attack and this
fixed it but I didn't like the unequal setup.
More recently I purchased the plastic airfoiled covers for my lift struts
and I found that by just angling them slightly like ailerons the problem
was
fixed. Ie) on the right (low) wing I have the airfoil lift strut with a
positive angle of attack and on the left wing (high) I have a slightly
negative angle of attack.
Plane flies perfectly true now
Gary Algate
Lite2/582
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Carroll
To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon
problrm - Now Prop info needed
Jim, thanks for your suggestions regarding the washout & the prop. As
Jeff
reminds me, I forgot to say that my KF3 is 582 powered. It makes a big
difference and I should have mentioned it before.
Your comment that I had said the plane used to fly balanced, I don't
believe
I said that. As long as I've had it, it flown screwy. Now its only
trying
to dip the right wing all of the time.
Tell me more about adding a wedge to the drooping wing. Things like
size,
and exactly where you put it, and how you attached it after determining
what
worked. This would be a neat way to go. Are you sure I should put it on
the bottom of the wing that wants to rise??? It would seem this would
make
it rise more, but what do I know?
Thanks again,
Ron Carroll
KF3/582 Oregon
----- Original Message -----
From: jimshumaker
To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon
problrm - Now Prop info needed
Ron
Forget the washout. The wing is so stiff it can hardly be adjusted.
Besides, you said that the plane used to fly balanced. I suspect that
the
flaperons are now just very slightly asymetrical. All you need to do is
balance them with a trim tab or wedge. It is easy to test by placing a
wedge of material on the bottom rear of the wing that wants to rise.
This
can be stuck on with double sided tape. A small trim tab on one side
will
also work.
Jim Shumaker
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Carroll" <RonCarr(at)qwest.net>
To:
Subject: Kitfox-List: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon
problrm
-
Now Prop info needed
>
> Well, I think my problem has finally been solved, and the plane seems
to
be flying much better. The problem was caused by a delaminated right
flaperon. By that I mean that the foam 'ribs' inside the flaperon were
disintegrated by gasoline that had entered the flaperon. When the flaps
were deployed the spar rotated, but apparently the strong wind forces on
the
surface of the flaperon prevented it from rotating as much as the spar.
>
> I opened up the flaperon, replaced the ribs with new foam ribs that
are
protected with epoxy resin. I also made a wood rib for the inboard end
of
the flaperon, then glued that to the spar & skin, and then screwed the
top
&
bottom skins to it. The flaperon system is now very snug, and operates
as
intended.
>
> HOWEVER, the plane still has a strong tendency to roll to the right at
all
times (not just when the flap are deployed). I am nearly certain that
this
is caused by the washout of the wings. According to the plans, the
washout
should be done initially so that each wing matches the other. The plans
then go on to say that actual flight should then determine if the
washout
should be fine tuned to suit the particular plane. That is where I am
now.
This afternoon I tweaked the lift struts in an attempt to even out the
lift.
Because of the weather I may not be able to test it for a couple of
days,
but I am now optimistic.
>
> Now that I feel the plane will be alright, I will go ahead and buy a
new
3-blade prop for it. I would like to ask for opinions regarding various
3-blade props on the market. I don't want to make a mistake now, I'd
rather
take advise from those much more experienced.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ron Carroll
> KF3 - Oregon
>
>
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Carroll" <RonCarr(at)qwest.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon problrm - |
Now Prop info needed
This will be an excellent exercise, John. I'll try it during my next test flight,
which will be when the weather breaks on Monday (I hope). This test will
tell me a lot, and I'll advise you of my findings.
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: JMCBEAN
To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon problrm
- Now Prop info needed
Ron,
Example: Fly the aircraft straight and level cruise power.
Holding the wings level with the control stick remove your feet from the
rudders. Does the aircraft yaw left, right or is the ball centered.
Go back to straight and level flight.
Holding the ball centered with your feet release the control stick. Does the
aircraft roll left, right or fly level.
The reason for this exercise is to determine if yaw is causing the roll or
if it's the wing. An aircraft out of rig in the yaw axis can and does create
a turning tendency.
If you have right roll caused by the wing then you can either increase the
angle of the right wing thereby creating more lift and drag or decrease the
angle of the left wing thereby reducing lift and drag.
To increase the lift of the right wing, extend the rod end on the forward
right lift strut only not the rear lift strut. By changing both the front
and rear lift strut you change dihedral of that wing.
Hope this makes sense
This is not an uncommon thing. Cessna has cams in the root section of the
wing to adjust the angle of incidence.
Blue Skies!!
John & Debra McBean
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ron Carroll
To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon
problrm - Now Prop info needed
Thanks for the ideas, Gary. I have already adjusted my lift struts to add
lift to the right wing, and remove lift from the left wing. These
adjustments were only slight, so not to have too much difference (if I get
any change at all). By slight, I mean I took made one full turn on each of
the four lift strut adjusters. We're talking only thousands of an inch
each.
My wooden lift strut fairings are already installed, so it would be tough to
change these at this time. I now have a few suggestions that I will play
with, and test fly when the weather clears.
Thanks,
Ron Carroll
KF3/582 - Oregon
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Algate
To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 9:01 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon
problrm - Now Prop info needed
Ron
My Lite2 always flew right wing low and after recommendations by the List
I
fitted a balsa wedge under my left flaperons and this helped a lot. I also
adjusted my struts to give my right wing a higher angle of attack and this
fixed it but I didn't like the unequal setup.
More recently I purchased the plastic airfoiled covers for my lift struts
and I found that by just angling them slightly like ailerons the problem
was
fixed. Ie) on the right (low) wing I have the airfoil lift strut with a
positive angle of attack and on the left wing (high) I have a slightly
negative angle of attack.
Plane flies perfectly true now
Gary Algate
Lite2/582
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Carroll
To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon
problrm - Now Prop info needed
Jim, thanks for your suggestions regarding the washout & the prop. As
Jeff
reminds me, I forgot to say that my KF3 is 582 powered. It makes a big
difference and I should have mentioned it before.
Your comment that I had said the plane used to fly balanced, I don't
believe
I said that. As long as I've had it, it flown screwy. Now its only
trying
to dip the right wing all of the time.
Tell me more about adding a wedge to the drooping wing. Things like
size,
and exactly where you put it, and how you attached it after determining
what
worked. This would be a neat way to go. Are you sure I should put it on
the bottom of the wing that wants to rise??? It would seem this would
make
it rise more, but what do I know?
Thanks again,
Ron Carroll
KF3/582 Oregon
----- Original Message -----
From: jimshumaker
To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon
problrm - Now Prop info needed
Ron
Forget the washout. The wing is so stiff it can hardly be adjusted.
Besides, you said that the plane used to fly balanced. I suspect that
the
flaperons are now just very slightly asymetrical. All you need to do is
balance them with a trim tab or wedge. It is easy to test by placing a
wedge of material on the bottom rear of the wing that wants to rise.
This
can be stuck on with double sided tape. A small trim tab on one side
will
also work.
Jim Shumaker
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Carroll" <RonCarr(at)qwest.net>
To:
Subject: Kitfox-List: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon
problrm
-
Now Prop info needed
>
> Well, I think my problem has finally been solved, and the plane seems
to
be flying much better. The problem was caused by a delaminated right
flaperon. By that I mean that the foam 'ribs' inside the flaperon were
disintegrated by gasoline that had entered the flaperon. When the flaps
were deployed the spar rotated, but apparently the strong wind forces on
the
surface of the flaperon prevented it from rotating as much as the spar.
>
> I opened up the flaperon, replaced the ribs with new foam ribs that
are
protected with epoxy resin. I also made a wood rib for the inboard end
of
the flaperon, then glued that to the spar & skin, and then screwed the
top
&
bottom skins to it. The flaperon system is now very snug, and operates
as
intended.
>
> HOWEVER, the plane still has a strong tendency to roll to the right at
all
times (not just when the flap are deployed). I am nearly certain that
this
is caused by the washout of the wings. According to the plans, the
washout
should be done initially so that each wing matches the other. The plans
then go on to say that actual flight should then determine if the
washout
should be fine tuned to suit the particular plane. That is where I am
now.
This afternoon I tweaked the lift struts in an attempt to even out the
lift.
Because of the weather I may not be able to test it for a couple of
days,
but I am now optimistic.
>
> Now that I feel the plane will be alright, I will go ahead and buy a
new
3-blade prop for it. I would like to ask for opinions regarding various
3-blade props on the market. I don't want to make a mistake now, I'd
rather
take advise from those much more experienced.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ron Carroll
> KF3 - Oregon
>
>
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Floran Higgins" <CliffH(at)outdrs.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Now Prop info needed |
It won't fit a 582 as the 582 engine turns in the opposite direction than
the 912.
Floran H.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Carroll" <RonCarr(at)qwest.net>
Subject: Fw: Kitfox-List: Now Prop info needed
>
> Cliff, I sent this to email address shown, but it bounced.
>
> Try this . . .
>
> Ron Carroll
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ron Carroll
> To: CLIFFH(at)odrs.net
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Now Prop info needed
>
>
> Floran, will it fit a 582 hub?? Price? Condition?
>
> Ron Carroll
> KF3/582 - Oregon
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Floran Higgins
> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 6:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Now Prop info needed
>
>
> I have a three bladed GSC prop that I removed from a 912 UL. The hub has
> about 500 hrs and the blades has about 100 hrs. It would not fit on the
912
> ULS.
> If someone wants it I'll sell it cheap.
> Contact me off line at: CLIFFH(at)odrs.net
> Floran H.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilocom@c-magic.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Now Prop info needed
>
>
> <shilocom@c-magic.com>
> >
> > I have two good blades off a GSC prop that was on a kitfox IV , rotax
> > 912,,,, But NO HUB... I'd take $20 each plus shipping for them. Bob
U.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood(at)mcsi.net>
> > To:
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Now Prop info needed
> >
> >
>
> > >
> > > Hi Ron,
> > >
> > > 3 bladed IVO and Warp seem to do better than the 3 bladed GSC. But
I
> > stuck with
> > > a replacement GSC due to the price. One of the list members gave me
a
> > very good
> > > deal quite a few years ago.
> > >
> > > Cheers, bh
> > >
> > > > Now that I feel the plane will be alright, I will go ahead and buy
a
> new
> > > 3-blade prop for it. I would like to ask for opinions regarding
various
> > 3-blade
> > > props on the market. I don't want to make a mistake now, I'd rather
> take
> > advise
> > > from those much more experienced.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Ron Carroll
> > > > KF3 - Oregon
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---
> > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gene m. calkins" <calkinsgm(at)charter.net> |
Michel I got pictures of the skis you wanted to see. They are in www.sportflight.com under add on/mods. they are made in Wisconsin but I think anyone can make them. they are made with square tubing with a nylon bottom. I will buy a set when I find his name and phone number again. Gene N99GC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon problrm - |
Now Prop info needed
Hi Lowell
You are, of course correct. It is the first choice for correction and can
actually correct quite a roll. The flaperon trim tab is a quick and dirty
method of correcting the rigging, and the wedge under the flaperon is even
dirtier and quicker. In fact the wedge method takes about 10 minutes to
apply and 5 minutes to adjust. I'm probably just lazy, but I'd rather spend
my time flying than building.
I tried adding twist to my wing with some effect and then tried trimming the
flaperons. Trimming the flaperons corrected the heavy wing and the screwy
flying (unpredictable and or inconsistent adverse yaw). So with the screwy
flying, one rebuilt rib and a heavy wing I just really feel that balancing
the flaperons would be my first step in correcting Ron's problem and then
look at the amount of trim required and then consider changing angle of
incidence. If the problem is more in the wings than in the flaperons then I
believe that correcting the heavy wing with the flaperon it will show up as
a displaced (uncentered) stick. Then I would adjust the incidence.
As John McBean pointed out, there will need to be a little test flying
reasoning and deduction required. Getting the wings to fly level may just
be the first step in trimming the rigging. I know I'm still working on mine
(500+ hours).
Jim Shumaker
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)inreach.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon
problrm - Now Prop info needed
>
> Jim, I respectfully disagree on this point. Maybe it depends on the
amount
> of correction needed. I was able to eliminate a heavy left wing by
> decreasing angle of attack on the right wing. Granted it was not a major
> change as I had been flying with the heavy wing for 500 hours, but finally
> changed it after taking an 87 year old friend up who had tons of hours as
a
> pilot, most of them flight testing aircraft after maintenance. He was an
> A&P also. He kept talking about it and I want to take him up again and
just
> didn't want to have it as a distraction for him.
>
> Lowell
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker(at)sbcglobal.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon
> problrm - Now Prop info needed
>
>
>
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > Forget the washout. The wing is so stiff it can hardly be adjusted.
> > Besides, you said that the plane used to fly balanced. I suspect that
> the
> > flaperons are now just very slightly asymetrical. All you need to do is
> > balance them with a trim tab or wedge. It is easy to test by placing a
> > wedge of material on the bottom rear of the wing that wants to rise.
This
> > can be stuck on with double sided tape. A small trim tab on one side
will
> > also work.
> >
> > Jim Shumaker
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | First Flight N913KF |
Bill,
Thanks for sharing your first flight experience. We were there with you as
we read the words. Congratulations on a good build and a good first flight.
Do we have pics of your plane? If not, upload them to sportflight.com under
completions.
Don Pearsall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | broschart <cfbflyer(at)localnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Now Prop info needed |
i think you would like the Powerfin prop's feeler gage adjustment method
better than the other methods used by other makes
Have a good day - Charlie
Rick wrote:
>
>
> Give NSI a call. A new prop almost ready and reportly better efficiency than
> the warp. Not sure what engine your running though.
>
> Rick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bruce
> Harrington
> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Now Prop info needed
>
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> 3 bladed IVO and Warp seem to do better than the 3 bladed GSC. But I stuck
> with
> a replacement GSC due to the price. One of the list members gave me a very
> good
> deal quite a few years ago.
>
> Cheers, bh
>
> > Now that I feel the plane will be alright, I will go ahead and buy a new
> 3-blade prop for it. I would like to ask for opinions regarding various
> 3-blade
> props on the market. I don't want to make a mistake now, I'd rather take
> advise
> from those much more experienced.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ron Carroll
> > KF3 - Oregon
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Verheughe <michel(at)online.no> |
| Subject: | Re: Wheels & skis |
"gene m. calkins" wrote:
> Michel I got pictures of the skis you wanted to see.
Thank you very much for the pictures you sent me private and on Sportflight, Gene.
I will answer on the list because I think it may interest other lister.
This looks exactly like what I had in mind. However I don't think it will work
on my plane since I have the old-fashion bungee gears and not the aluminium
ones. I don't see how I can get the axis of the support going through and being
fixed on the inside. Maybe it can be done but then by modification that changes
the structure of my existing gears and I won't do that without a proper
quality-assurance from the designer of my existing gears.
Do you know of anyone having this type of skis on a bungee gear configuration?
Thanks in advance,
Michel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Verheughe <michel(at)online.no> |
| Subject: | Re: First Flight N913KF |
Bill Hammond wrote:
> I think that I am in love.
Welcome to the club of cheerful lovers, Bill. Thank you for a great story and
your insight on ATC. It's nice to learn about you, controller guys, working
conditions. I did visit my own local tower but I am not sure all GA pilots do
that. When we are in the air, controllers are our "umbilical cord" to earth. We
are glad you are there and we enjoy reading about you everyday's life. Thanks again.
Cheers,
Michel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Verheughe <michel(at)online.no> |
Jerry Liles wrote:
> Avid offered the wheel penetrating ski and it worked well. I think
> pictures are still available on the Avid site and could be used to
> construct your own
I looked at the Avid site but I can't find any pictures of skis, Jerry. Do you
have a link? TIA,
Michel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Burke <jeburke94je(at)direcway.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wheels & skis |
Gene, when you find the contact information on this guy will you post it? I
would be interested in a set of skies for my KF IV.
Thanks,
James E. Burke
N94JE IV-1200
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dmorisse" <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Re: First Flight N913KF |
Great story Bill and congrats on your maiden voyage!
Darrel Morisse
S5
(ret atc)
>
> Following is another, albeit wordy, story of a first flight in a
> brand new Kitfox.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dmorisse" <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us> |
Although the airplane is long gone to another flier, I built my own skis to
fit the bungee gear. I used a set of snowmobile plastic skis. Actually,
rather than plastic, it's called something else, but very much like a high
density and very tough nylon type material that is much stronger than it
appears and about .040 in thickness. I used a pine 2X10 sandwhiched
between two pieces of .060
aluminum then using a piece of .125 aluminum bolted the whole shebang to
the skis. The hole for the axle was made to accept a .750 ID bronze
bushing (hardware store variety) and with a couple pvc spacers was held on
by the wheel axle. Very simple to make, lighter than the original wheel
assembly, about a 15 minute project to change from wheel to ski. The brake
disc problem was solved by simply safety wiring a spacer between the two
pads so that when the brake was pressed, it would just compress on the
spacer. Admittedly, it's either wheels or skis, but they definitely did
the job on the old model II. No tail ski was necessary. I just left the
original tailwheel in place as it aided in turning and made a good brake.
Takeoff was a simple matter of full power, lift the tail and go. The
airplane flew fine and sometimes I wish I'd never let those skis go. Cost
was minimal, no welding required, and materials were all locally available.
Hope this might help somebody. Pics available on :
http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1070714137
Darrel Morisse
S5 with Federal 1500s found on ebay for $325
>Michael said:
> Thank you very much for the pictures you sent me private and on
Sportflight, Gene.
> I will answer on the list because I think it may interest other lister.
>
> This looks exactly like what I had in mind. However I don't think it will
work
> on my plane since I have the old-fashion bungee gears and not the
aluminium
> ones. I don't see how I can get the axis of the support going through and
being
> fixed on the inside. Maybe it can be done but then by modification that
changes
> the structure of my existing gears and I won't do that without a proper
> quality-assurance from the designer of my existing gears.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: insurance price adjustment |
| From: | charles b cook <cookflys(at)juno.com> |
Roger
The insurance company that told me of the price adjustment was Avemco.
The way the salesperson explained it the insurance companies are trying
to prevent you from cancelling insurance and going to another carrier.
You would have got a 9% price break if your aircraft and you had flown 20
hrs when you first applied. It doesn't cost anything to call and see
maybe Falcon and others do the same.
As far as covering the test pilot even if he/she is on your policy during
the first 20/40 hrs of flying with them flying solo some carriers will
not give medical, hull, or protect you from a law suit if your aircraft
hurts the test pilot. (The best friends relatives can sue you.)
Charles
>
>
> Charles,
> This sounds interesting. Can you be more specific on what
> companies are
> offering this 9% rebate.
> I can contact you off list if you prefer.
> Regards
> Roger Mac
> S7/ 912S
> getting ready to cover fuselage
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of charles
> b
> cook
> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: insurance price adjustment
>
>
>
>
> Just thought I would throw this out.
> Some of the insurance companies will give you a 9% rebate as soon as
> you
> fly the first 20 hrs off your aircraft. YOU must call them for this
> rebate. There is another 9% when you have 160 hrs in type of
> aircraft.
>
> If you are building and looking for insurance one thing that caught
> my
> attention is some of the policies do not cover a test pilot other
> than
> the owner. Sounds strange but I have a friend who is willing to help
> on
> the initial flying who has 600+ hrs in kitfoxes and if I elected for
> him
> to do a test flight he is not covered until the 40 hrs are flown
> off.
> Liability coverage would be in place but no hull or medical and
> life.
> Charles Cook
> 363kf
>
>
>
=
>
=
> =============
>
=
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Liles <wliles(at)bayou.com> |
Go to the Avid site. On the right hand side click on options. On the
options page under Options and Accessories click on Wheel penetration
skis. I think I have some additional pictures with some construction
details if you are interested. You might also contact Steve Winder on
the Airdale site. I think he may be able to help.
Jerry Liles
Michel Verheughe wrote:
>
>Jerry Liles wrote:
>
>
>>Avid offered the wheel penetrating ski and it worked well. I think
>>pictures are still available on the Avid site and could be used to
>>construct your own
>>
>>
>
>I looked at the Avid site but I can't find any pictures of skis, Jerry. Do you
>have a link? TIA,
>
>Michel
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dmorisse" <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Kuntselman strobes |
Does anybody out there have the URL for Kuntselman Strobes? (hope I have
the spelling correct) Better yet, anybody have a set they want to sell? I
need a right side light assembly, but then again, I think right and left
are interchangeable.
Appreciate any help.
Darrel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Verheughe <michel(at)online.no> |
| Subject: | Re: Kuntselman strobes |
dmorisse wrote:
> Does anybody out there have the URL for Kuntselman Strobes?
Is this what you are looking for, Darrel?
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/menus/el52.php
Cheers,
Michel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Carroll" <RonCarr(at)qwest.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Now Prop info needed |
Charlie, I currently have a 2-blade Powerfin on my plane, and find it a little
harder to adjust. My problem is that while using a feeler gauge is nice, things
change slightly when the blades are torqued, as evidenced by the use of a bubble
protractor. I just use the bubble machine from the get-go so that I don't
have to do it twice.
The reason I'm interested in a 3-blade prop is because the 2-blade I have is about
2 or 3 inches too short. To compensate it must have too much pitch dialed
in to load the engine properly, affecting my take-off & climb.
I can get one new blade and a 3-blade hub from Powerfin. They will cut off my
existing two blades to match & balance the new third blade. The cost for parts
& labor is nearly the cost of a new prop. This is why I asked for recommendations
for prop preferences. If I buy a whole new prop I can sell the old one
and get some of the cost back.
Ron Carroll
----- Original Message -----
From: broschart
To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 3:23 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Now Prop info needed
i think you would like the Powerfin prop's feeler gage adjustment method
better than the other methods used by other makes
Have a good day - Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay & Beverly Carter" <valley361(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kuntselman strobes |
Kuntzleman www.kestrobes.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "dmorisse" <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kuntselman strobes
>
> Does anybody out there have the URL for Kuntselman Strobes? (hope I have
> the spelling correct) Better yet, anybody have a set they want to sell?
I
> need a right side light assembly, but then again, I think right and left
> are interchangeable.
> Appreciate any help.
> Darrel
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor(at)online.no> |
| Subject: | Re: Kuntselman strobes |
Found this one in my bookmark file:
http://kestrobes.com/Homex.html
Torgeir.
dmorisse wrote:
>
>
> Does anybody out there have the URL for Kuntselman Strobes? (hope I have
> the spelling correct) Better yet, anybody have a set they want to sell? I
> need a right side light assembly, but then again, I think right and left
> are interchangeable.
> Appreciate any help.
> Darrel
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dmorisse" <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Re: Kuntselman strobes |
Thanks to all who replied with my url request. Found just what I needed
and even found someone at work to place the order for me so the part is on
the way!
BTW, if you you're looking for inexpensive strobes, you might consider the
Kuntzleman units. Been serving me well for several years.
Darrel
>
> Found this one in my bookmark file:
>
> http://kestrobes.com/Homex.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cnichols" <cnichols(at)scrtc.com> |
| Subject: | Kuntzleman strobes |
Allow me to say this about the Kuntzleman company. They are super nice folks to
deal with. The strobe driver on my plane went bad after several years. They
fixed it free, and the only charge was $5.00 to cover their shipping it back
to me. They didn't even insist on the 5 dollars in advance. They simply trusted
me to send it to them. There aren't many companies around today who provide
that kind of service.
Clem Nichols
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay & Beverly Carter" <valley361(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: S6 Wheel Pants |
John,
Thanks for the fedback. Just checking I wasn't heading off on a
wrong track. My Citabria has about 5" clearance to the wheel pant. I will
probably move the Kitfox pant up to about 4" and go with that. Do not
archive.
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Anderson" <janderson412(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: S6 Wheel Pants
>
>
> Yes, that's about right Jay. I've made mine so they are easy to remove and
only intend to use them for long dist flights and good surfaces.
>
>
> From: "Jay Beverly Carter" <VALLEY361(at)CENTURYTEL.NET>
> To: "Kit Fox"
> Subject: Kitfox-List: S6Wheel Pants
> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:13:51 -0600
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jay Beverly Carter"
>
> Question for anyone that has completed this installation. Looking
> at the Skystar instructions it appears that with a fully inflated tire
> there would be about 3" between the low point of the pant and
> ground. Does not seem adequate.
>
> Thanks,Jay C.
>
>
> With Xtra Jetstream - you
don't need a separate phone line for the internet!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dmorisse" <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us> |
Bounced msg sent to old list.
Darrel
List Janitor
Subject: Bird Strike on Model IV Being Built
List
Thought I would share my unfortunate experience today with a large bird. It think
it was what we in Texas call a Grakle. I had just finished sanding after
the second coat of Poly Spray on my rudder and was complimenting myself on a job
well done. As a reward I decided it was time for a break. So leaving my
garage door open I went into the house and sat in my favorite chair and relaxed
for about 15 minutes. When I returned to the garage, much to my disbelieve,
this bird was sitting on my beautiful rudder pecking away. I didn't know that
birds like Poly Spay. Perhaps he was looking for UV protection. It does not
appear that the pecking did any real damage. However, in the process of doing
my level best to commit murder with a broom, this beast landed on my rudder
with surch force that his claws tore a 1/2" hole in the rudder. So now I am trying
to decide whether to patch this hole and forever be reminded of this now
deceased critter or to recover the whole rudder.
No need for anyone to be concerned that this bird might attach your airplane.
He is no longer capable.
Maybe by tomorrow I will be able to laugh about this.
Jimmie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Gandy" <s.gandy(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Rotax Engine Sale |
Copied this off of yesterdays EAA newsletter for anyone interested
Rotax Announces End-of-Year Engine Sale
Rotax has announced a never-before-offered, end-of-year sale for its
two- and four-stroke engines. Interested buyers can save up to $393 on
various two-stroke models, or up to $1,661 on various four-stroke
models. However, the Rotax 447 and Rotax 914 engines are exempted from
this offer.
This offer is good on existing engines in the inventory of any of Kodiak
Research's North American distributors and is valid on any engines paid
for by December 24, 2003. For more information, contact your local Rotax
distributor or Lockwood Aviation Supply, 800/527-6829.
Steve Gandy
s.gandy(at)comcast.net
Aeronca L-3C N48540
Kitfox 6 N540KF (Building)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RiteAngle3(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kuntzleman strobes |
I've dropped by and talked to Kuntzleman since the first year I displayed at
Sun n Fun and always drop by and say Hi, even though I haven't had a booth in
the U/L area for several years. I am sure you will find them excellent to
work with, and good honest people. I have never heard anything negative about
them, which is excellent in today's world!
Elbie
EM Aviation
www.riteangle.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John E. King " <kingjohn(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Flight N913KF |
Bill,
Now that you have experienced that thrill, hurry up and get the required
40 hours on N913KF and experience your next thrill. In late July fly it
to Oshkosh 2004 and be one of the thousands of pilots who experience an
approach to the most busiest airport in the world. Maybe one day when
you get real good they will let you handle the tower.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
Bill Hammond wrote:
>
>Following is another, albeit wordy, story of a first flight in a
>brand new Kitfox.
>
>
>Bill Hammond
>Parker, Colorado
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wwillyard(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon problrm - |
Now Pr...
In a message dated 12/4/2003 11:24:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
RonCarr(at)qwest.net writes:
Now that I feel the plane will be alright, I will go ahead and buy a new
3-blade prop for it. I would like to ask for opinions regarding various 3-blade
props on the market. I don't want to make a mistake now, I'd rather take
advise from those much more experienced.
I can't speak for the 582, but I have the three blade powerfin on my 912 and
have no complaints. Nice people to work with, quality product. Tried the
three blade GSC, it was poorly balanced, would not hold tracking and required
constant re-torqueing of the hub.
Bill W.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)inreach.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon problrm - |
Now Pr...
Bill,
At the risk of possibly raising a storm, I feel I have to report on the
experience of a couple of friends I frequently fly with. Consider that both
had 912 UL engines. One went from the GSC to a Powerfin and is now back to
the GSC. The other went from a Warp to the Powerfin. He still flies behind
the Powerfin but had a devil of a time blending climb with cruise
performance. What he finally did was to adjust the prop to give him redline
at full throttle in level flight. Both clipped 1" from each blade - factory
modified. If they tried to adjust for cruise with the longer blade, there
was too much drag on the prop and they couldn't get the RPMs up. The GSC
guy felt frustrated and quit the experiment and the Warp guy has remarkable
climb, but still lost a little bit in cruise.
My thinking on this is that the Powerfin prop is like a paddle at the root
of the blade and all this effort is masked by the round cowl of the Model
IV. I think the smooth cowl of the 5 and above pretty much eliminates this
problem.
Anyway, this is what these two would tell you. Neither is on the list.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: <Wwillyard(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon
problrm - Now Pr...
>
> In a message dated 12/4/2003 11:24:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> RonCarr(at)qwest.net writes:
> Now that I feel the plane will be alright, I will go ahead and buy a new
> 3-blade prop for it. I would like to ask for opinions regarding various
3-blade
> props on the market. I don't want to make a mistake now, I'd rather take
> advise from those much more experienced.
>
> I can't speak for the 582, but I have the three blade powerfin on my 912
and
> have no complaints. Nice people to work with, quality product. Tried the
> three blade GSC, it was poorly balanced, would not hold tracking and
required
> constant re-torqueing of the hub.
>
> Bill W.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Grant Fluent <gjfpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
Michel,
I built a pair of ski dollies when I was 1/2 owner
in an Aeronca Chief with skis. If you're interested, I
have pictures.
Grant Fluent
Newcastle, NE
Classic IV 912S
--- Michel Verheughe wrote:
> This is very nice, Darrel, you did an excellent job.
> But I already have this
> kind of skis. The problem is, if I use them:
>
> 1) I'll need a dolly to put the plane on in order to
> get it in the hangar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: insurance price adjustment |
Oops - Allow me to clarify/reword Bob,
What they said was that for the first 40 hrs, anyone
other than the builder would always be considered a
"passenger" even if the were a solo test pilot with a
gazillion hrs of KF experience. Until the 40 hrs were
up, only the builder would be insured, and then only
if you had at least 20 hrs in the same model and with
the same engine.
I have Avemco now, but only hull, not in motion. They
started me out with all-but-flying hull insurance for
$250, which would haved cover my ground testing. Then
last year they raised me to $500, not in motion, hull
only. I checked with Falcon and with EAA this year.
Don't think I checked AOPA too, but I might have.
So far, I decided to get my 20 hrs and then go back to
Falcon, unless I hear of a better offer. Thanks to
C.B. Cook's info, I might try Avemco again, then go
for the 9% reduction, if I can.
Kurt S.
--- Bob Unternaehrer <shilocom@c-magic.com> wrote:
> Unternaehrer" <shilocom@c-magic.com>
>
> < the
> first test flight on my plane. The insurance
> company
> said that all other people, beside myself, are
> considered "passengers" until the 40 hrs are
> complete,
> thus illegal and uninsured people>>
>
> I thought that passengers were not allowed untill
> after the 40 hours,,, thus
> insurance would probably be void if carrying a
> passenger Bob U.
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: insurance price adjustment |
Thanks for the info Charles,
I have Avemco now, but will try them again to see if I
can get some "reasonable" coverage for the first 20
hrs. I am only worried about hull and liability
anyway. Not much concerned about covering myself.
I tried to get them to cover my test pilot, but was
told they would not cover any pilot, other than the
builder, for the testing period.
It may be the different agents that each of us talks
to that varies in the reply too.
Kurt S.
--- charles b cook wrote:
>
>
> Roger
> The insurance company that told me of the price
> adjustment was Avemco.
> The way the salesperson explained it the insurance
> companies are trying
> to prevent you from cancelling insurance and going
> to another carrier.
> You would have got a 9% price break if your aircraft
> and you had flown 20
> hrs when you first applied. It doesn't cost anything
> to call and see
> maybe Falcon and others do the same.
>
> As far as covering the test pilot even if he/she is
> on your policy during
> the first 20/40 hrs of flying with them flying solo
> some carriers will
> not give medical, hull, or protect you from a law
> suit if your aircraft
> hurts the test pilot. (The best friends relatives
> can sue you.)
> Charles
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com> |
Jimmie,
My 2 cents only...
If you are near done, just patch the rudder and get it
finished. Then fly it and fix it later.
If you have a ways to go and have the time, redo the
rudder and make yourself proud. It is nicer knowing
everything is "right and pretty" on the first flight.
In my case, I have a belly patch. (Screwdrivers
always land pointy end first when dropped from the
inside, don't they?) It was near done and still flys
good.
Kurt S.
> So now I am
> trying to decide whether to patch this hole and
> forever be reminded of this now deceased critter or
> to recover the whole rudder.
> Jimmie
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com> |
It would be historically funny if Avid and SS were
rejoined under new ownership.
Kurt S.
--- JMCBEAN wrote:
>
>
> I have been hesitant to say anything........ I have
> had several customers
> call about the status of Avid, have heard some talk
> about it and have had
> potential customers come to Skystar for a tour after
> they went to Avid.
>
> The bottom line of what I have heard is that Avid is
> out of business... the
> hanger in MT is empty and people are looking for the
> assets which seem to be
> "on the move".
>
> Blue Skies!!
> John & Debra McBean
> "The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com> |
What a great set of skis Darrel! I am saving your
message to my "things to do" list.
Kurt S.
--- dmorisse wrote:
>
> Although the airplane is long gone to another flier,
> I built my own skis to
> fit the bungee gear. I used a set of snowmobile
> plastic skis...
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | insurance price adjustment |
John,
Did they add them as a pilot/test pilot during the
test period, or just after?
Kurt S.
--- JMCBEAN wrote:
>
>
> Kurt,
> I use AOPA and the insurance is through AIG.
> They didn't have a problem
> adding someone to the insurance as a pilot. Still
> can't carry them as a
> passenger.
>
> I agree that the insurance is well out of control.
> More to come on that
> issue.
>
> Blue Skies!!
> John & Debra McBean
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Verheughe <michel(at)online.no> |
"gene m. calkins" wrote:
> Michel This what I found on Airdale Steve Winder Ph. # 208-459-6254
> Email ukav8r(at)mindspring.com hope this helps. Gene N99GC
Thank you, Gene and Jerry. My email is sent, I'll let you know the result.
Today I went for a short Kitfox flight and my hangar neighbour, a Renagate
owner, is also interested in such "wheel penetration snow skis." We'll see.
Cheers,
Michel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Flight N913KF |
Congrats Bill!
Glad it went so well. These KF's really do surprise
you with their smooth, quick performance, don't they?
Wish I could get off work that easily. :-)
After flying to another large airport for 2 months and
often being assigned 3 different runways between
approach and landing, I returned to Denver as "UPS
2804" last Spring. Made it known to tower that it was
a pleasure to be working with professionals again.
Kurt S.
--- Bill Hammond wrote:
>
> Following is another, albeit wordy, story of a first
> flight in a
> brand new Kitfox.
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JMCBEAN" <JDMCBEAN(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | insurance price adjustment |
I didn't specify one way or the other. Like any other policy I simply added
them by name. For example I could have added you to the policy and I would
have needed to supply them with your qualifications. I did quite a bit of
shopping for rates.... AVEMCO was ridiculously high... Through AOPA, who is
a broker and will shop the insurance with various underwriters, was still
higher then I would have expected considering my type specific experience.
FALCON was within $10 of AIG and I have been with AIG for several years so I
stayed with them. Liability is not that bad but the hull insurance is
terrible.
By the way.. for those that are shopping for insurance.. there are only a
handful of Underwriters (approx 8 - 10). Usually when you contact someone
like AOPA they will send it to most of them for a quote. AVEMCO is there
own underwriter.
Blue Skies!!
John & Debra McBean
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of kurt schrader
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: insurance price adjustment
John,
Did they add them as a pilot/test pilot during the
test period, or just after?
Kurt S.
--- JMCBEAN wrote:
>
>
> Kurt,
> I use AOPA and the insurance is through AIG.
> They didn't have a problem
> adding someone to the insurance as a pilot. Still
> can't carry them as a
> passenger.
>
> I agree that the insurance is well out of control.
> More to come on that
> issue.
>
> Blue Skies!!
> John & Debra McBean
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | FW: Intercooler for turbo possible and more.... |
Sent to old address by mistake...
____________________________
From: "Rick" <turboflyer(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Intercooler for turbo possible and more....
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 08:26:15 -0800
For those that may be interested I have done a bit of research. It would
seem that an intercooler is a real possibility for our turbo Subaru engines.
Yes, even though we run a fuel air mixture to the turbo compressor and into
the intake manifold. The main problem associated with this set up is turbo
lag, but in our application were not shifting gears so it is really a
non-issue. The size recommended for the 1.8 making roughly 150HP would be
2.25x10x6 in. I still have to get my engine back together so I do not know
exactly where it will go but there are several real possibilities and all
with relatively short runs.
I have also found a source for those stainless valves and a shop that does
the work. My heads are there now. Contact them direct at www.ramengines.com
Ron is the owner and a real nice fellow. Get your check books out its a
candy store. Check out the roller rockers at the bottom of the page, they
will be on my new heads along with an oil pan that belongs on an airplane
engine.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dmorisse" <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Intercooler for turbo |
Bounced from sending to old List.
Darrel Morisse
List Janitor
From: "Rick" <turboflyer(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Intercooler for turbo possible and more....
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 08:26:15 -0800
For those that may be interested I have done a bit of research. It would
seem that an intercooler is a real possibility for our turbo Subaru
engines.
Yes, even though we run a fuel air mixture to the turbo compressor and into
the intake manifold. The main problem associated with this set up is turbo
lag, but in our application were not shifting gears so it is really a
non-issue. The size recommended for the 1.8 making roughly 150HP would be
2.25x10x6 in. I still have to get my engine back together so I do not know
exactly where it will go but there are several real possibilities and all
with relatively short runs.
I have also found a source for those stainless valves and a shop that does
the work. My heads are there now. Contact them direct at www.ramengines.com
Ron is the owner and a real nice fellow. Get your check books out its a
candy store. Check out the roller rockers at the bottom of the page, they
will be on my new heads along with an oil pan that belongs on an airplane
engine.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dmorisse" <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us> |
> I built a pair of ski dollies when I was 1/2 owner
> in an Aeronca Chief with skis. If you're interested, I
> have pictures.
>
> Grant Fluent
> Newcastle, NE
> Classic IV 912S
Grant, would you mind posting those pics on Sportflight.com?
Darrel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick" <turboflyer(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Test for the dummy |
test
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Smathers <jsmathers(at)cybcon.com> |
Hi Rick,
I am nearing completion on my KF5 with the NSI Subaru EA-81 and CAP140
and will be weighing the aircraft in a few days...I was wondering what is your
CG limits and weight on your aircraft?
John McBean said the CG was 9.96 to 14.75 ( one degree fwd wing sweep ).
Is that what you are using?
Thanks, Jeff Smathers
Rick wrote:
>
> test
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless(at)barefootpilot.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Flight N913KF |
Bill,
Congrats on your first flight!!
Sorry this response is so late, my wife Patti and I just got back from
Oklahoma City (yes we flew there in our model 5 kitfox)
I look forward to flying with you soon and seeing your new plane. Stan S.
told me that you were about ready to fly, so welcome to the Colorado kitfox
family.
The kitfox population has been exploding along the front range. There should
be a model 7 flying in Longmont any day now.
See ya soon,
Cliff
Erie, Co
S5, Lyc 0-235 250 hours
S5, Rotax 912 1000 hours
S5 Lyc. 0-290 0 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor(at)online.no> |
| Subject: | Re: First Flight N913KF |
> Bill Hammond wrote:
> So, now I have 36 minutes of Kitfox time in my log book.
A big Congratulation..
Torgeir.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "sid" <sid(at)i2k.com> |
Michel, I have some pictures of homemade wheel-though skiis that were
somewhat copied from the Avid idea. Not the best in construction, but he
wasn't done with them when he took the pictures..........will give you some
more ideas on constructing your own. Not too hard.
Sid
send me your address and I can send the pictures direct to you. sid(at)i2k.com
----------------
> Michel I got pictures of the skis you wanted to see. They are in
www.sportflight.com under add on/mods. they are made in Wisconsin but I
think anyone can make them. they are made with square tubing with a nylon
bottom. I will buy a set when I find his name and phone number again. Gene
N99GC
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JMCBEAN" <JDMCBEAN(at)cableone.net> |
What were you doing in OK City...... Did you get in trouble ???
Blue Skies!!
John & Debra McBean
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Clifford Begnaud
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: First Flight N913KF
Bill,
Congrats on your first flight!!
Sorry this response is so late, my wife Patti and I just got back from
Oklahoma City (yes we flew there in our model 5 kitfox)
I look forward to flying with you soon and seeing your new plane. Stan S.
told me that you were about ready to fly, so welcome to the Colorado kitfox
family.
The kitfox population has been exploding along the front range. There should
be a model 7 flying in Longmont any day now.
See ya soon,
Cliff
Erie, Co
S5, Lyc 0-235 250 hours
S5, Rotax 912 1000 hours
S5 Lyc. 0-290 0 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor(at)online.no> |
| Subject: | Re: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon problrm - |
Now Pr...
Isn't such stuff of value for the archive??
I'll say YES.
Torgeir.
Ron Carroll wrote:
>
>
> Bill, your message to Lowell states that you use a 70" Powerfin Prop. I am using
a Powerfin with 2-blades, measuring 70" diameter. However, I must dial
in an excessive amount of pitch in order to absorb my 582's power. I don't know
whether to go to a longer 2-blade, or change to a 3-blade.
>
> Do you have a 2 or 3-blade configuration, and what is your engine? It may be
that you have a larger engine, accounting for the nearly 90 MPH cruise at 5500.
>
> According to the Powerfin tech, my 2-blade 70" prop is not long enough for a
582. My question to the list has generated so many different opinions that I'm
not sure what to do. I can order 2 new longer blades from Powerfin to replace
my existing blades (about $300), or buy 1 shorter blade, a 3-blade hub, and
send my two in to be shortened & matched to the new one (about $410). The only
reason I haven't bought 2 new blades (the least expensive route) is because
I've heard that the 3-blades are smoother and give best all-round performance.
At 5500 I only get about 75 MPH, a tad short of your 88.
>
> Ron Carroll
> #################
> Lowell
>
> There may be some truth to the round cowl effect although I have nothing to
> base this on other than talk on the list. Unlike what appears to be the goal
> of a number of Kitfox builders, speed at cruse was not a concern and for this
> reason I went 68" to the 70" diameter with the Powerfin. I chose this prop over
> the warp drive largely because of its weight. There may be better choices
> but compared to the GSC, this has proven to be a very low maintenance prop for
> me. I dialed my prop into give me what I felt was a comfortable cruse speed at
> 5500 RPM. With this setting I indicate about 88 to 89 MPH and can easily
> exceed engine red line in level flight. When I tried to achieve higher curse
> speeds, with either prop, I found that I would start to have low fuel indications
> at the header tank when the wing tanks were less than half full do to the
> somewhat negative angle of attack to maintain level flight. My prior Cessna
> flight time and the very sensitive rudder on the Kitfox also resulted in frequently
> poor flight coordination during this phase of testing which may have
> contributed to the fuel flow problem. As a result I decided that I wanted a cruse
> speed that would have the bottom side of the wing approximately level with the
> horizon. With my current prop setting I can achieve the published climb
> performance figures and that makes me happy.
>
> The bottom line is I fly because I love to fly so if it takes me a little
> longer to get to my destination (should I actually have a destination) so much
> the better.
>
> Bill W. N20736
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick" <turboflyer(at)comcast.net> |
One degree forward on long wing C.G., most forward 10.35 most aft 12.57 ,
empty weight 978lbs. Empty weight CG is 8.81. My radiator is mounted aft of
pilot not factory location, weight in tail and heavy RG35 battery aft also.
Also have the gap seal on the hozstab and plenty of authority on landing
even at gross and some on a hot day. By the way you caused me to gain 40lbs.
I had in my mind 938, hate it when I do that. :)
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jeff
Smathers
Subject: Kitfox-List: CG question
Hi Rick,
I am nearing completion on my KF5 with the NSI Subaru EA-81 and CAP140
and will be weighing the aircraft in a few days...I was wondering what is
your
CG limits and weight on your aircraft?
John McBean said the CG was 9.96 to 14.75 ( one degree fwd wing sweep ).
Is that what you are using?
Thanks, Jeff Smathers
Rick wrote:
>
> test
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Verheughe <michel(at)online.no> |
| Subject: | Re: Unfriendly ATC |
Ron Carroll wrote:
> Michel, understand that this happened several years ago (about 1990), and is
not typical
> of how things really are, especially today.
Oh, I do understand, Ron! I know virtually nothing about US air traffic control
but, due to my profession, I know very well the US Coast Guards, and if your
country expect the same discipline in the air as at sea, the US ATC system must
be a model for the rest of the world. It only makes your experience even more shocking.
> It has always seemed to me that controllers should have the experience of being
PIC
> to more fully understand & appreciate what's going on. Obviously I'm wrong.
As I would encourage any PIC to visit an ATC working space, it would make sense
that our controllers also have an experience of the workload of a pilot. But in
the big picture of air traffic control, we, the fleas of the sky, are nothing
compared to the "heavies." And I suppose that a dialogue between "heavy" pilots
and ATC guys is going on all the time.
Cheers,
Michel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Anderson" <janderson412(at)hotmail.com> |
I'll be interested to see what you weigh in at Jeff, I have almost the same config
as you (Series 5 and EA81T) Just about to weigh too.
John A.
From: Jeff Smathers <JSMATHERS(at)CYBCON.COM>
Subject: Kitfox-List: CG question
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 11:50:08 -0800
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Jeff Smathers
Hi Rick,
I am nearing completion on my KF5 with the NSI Subaru EA-81 and CAP140
and will be weighing the aircraft in a few days...I was wondering what is your
CG limits and weight on your aircraft?
John McBean said the CG was 9.96 to 14.75 ( one degree fwd wing sweep ).
Is that what you are using?
Thanks,Jeff Smathers
Rick wrote:
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick"
test
With Xtra Jetstream - you can surf the net and talk on the phone!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kitfox" <Kitfox(at)chrisbates.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: Unfriendly ATC |
To add fuel to the fire, quite a few of the military ATC people in the UK
used to be 'failed' military pilots but, to be quite frank the military are
the best ATC people we have, very helpful, friendly and above all
professional. We have some good 'civilian' controllers but quite often they
can be unhelpful and abrupt. We currently have an ongoing investigation as
quite often we are denied access through controlled airspace at the whim of
certain ATC areas when it appears not much is going on. In total contrast
some ATC's are extremely helpful. You get to know who they are when you hear
them on the air and avoid talking to them like the plague.
My favourite is when you call up and offer information to let them know
you're doing something outside their airspace like crossing the end of their
ILS, out of simple courteousy, only for them to give you a hard time,
subsequently we avoid talking to certain controllers which must, in the long
term, make life frustrating when they see an unidentified blip outside of
their jurisdiction and are not sure what it is doing!
Michel, good to here you are getting on so well with your Fox.
Chris
MKII UK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel(at)online.no>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Unfriendly ATC
>
> Ron Carroll wrote:
> > Michel, understand that this happened several years ago (about 1990),
and is not typical
> > of how things really are, especially today.
>
> Oh, I do understand, Ron! I know virtually nothing about US air traffic
control
> but, due to my profession, I know very well the US Coast Guards, and if
your
> country expect the same discipline in the air as at sea, the US ATC system
must
> be a model for the rest of the world. It only makes your experience even
more shocking.
>
> > It has always seemed to me that controllers should have the experience
of being PIC
> > to more fully understand & appreciate what's going on. Obviously I'm
wrong.
>
> As I would encourage any PIC to visit an ATC working space, it would make
sense
> that our controllers also have an experience of the workload of a pilot.
But in
> the big picture of air traffic control, we, the fleas of the sky, are
nothing
> compared to the "heavies." And I suppose that a dialogue between "heavy"
pilots
> and ATC guys is going on all the time.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick" <turboflyer(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Reduction drive Ratio with 72in 3XWarp blades |
John hurry and weigh that baby, spank her on the butt and get her back in
the air. Interested in seeing what numbers you pull with the redrive ratio
change. You sure about the 1.9 or is it actually 2.12. The info I have so
far tells me the optimum thrust made by our blade combination is obtained
with 16.5 degrees pitch at about 2650RPMs. I am going to hold off on the
removal of mine until I get some feed back from you. I may have hear you
wrong. 5200/1.9 would give 2736 so maybe you were looking for a lower RPM.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless(at)barefootpilot.com> |
John,
Yeah, I'm in trouble alright, but not with the FAA. Patti has been riding
our neighbors horses and has caught a serious case of "horse on the brain".
She's taking lessons, and spending weekends grooming the neighbors horses
etc. This weekend was the National Reining Horse association Futurity in OK
city. So we went to see the finals and freestyle competition. It was most
impressive to see what these people can get a horse do.
I complain about it, but I really like horses also and see us owning some in
the future. Now we have to find property where can have horses AND a private
runway ;-)
Cliff
>
> What were you doing in OK City...... Did you get in trouble ???
>
> Blue Skies!!
> John & Debra McBean
> "The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jblackwell" <jblackwell(at)totalaccess.net> |
| Subject: | Sport Pilot Status |
Just wondering if anyone has heard any news as to why DOT is holding on to he Sportpilot
ruling. EAA does not seem to know or is not at liberty to reveil what
is going on. Thought maybe some of you may have heard something.
Thanks
Jimmie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Smathers <jsmathers(at)cybcon.com> |
40lbs! What did you hang on those bracket mounts I sent you?
...and thanks for the CG data.
Jeff Smathers
Rick wrote:
>
> One degree forward on long wing C.G., most forward 10.35 most aft 12.57 ,
> empty weight 978lbs. Empty weight CG is 8.81. My radiator is mounted aft of
> pilot not factory location, weight in tail and heavy RG35 battery aft also.
> Also have the gap seal on the hozstab and plenty of authority on landing
> even at gross and some on a hot day. By the way you caused me to gain 40lbs.
> I had in my mind 938, hate it when I do that. :)
>
> Rick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jeff
> Smathers
> To: turboflyer(at)comcast.net; kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: CG question
>
>
> Hi Rick,
>
> I am nearing completion on my KF5 with the NSI Subaru EA-81 and CAP140
> and will be weighing the aircraft in a few days...I was wondering what is
> your
>
> CG limits and weight on your aircraft?
>
> John McBean said the CG was 9.96 to 14.75 ( one degree fwd wing sweep ).
> Is that what you are using?
>
> Thanks, Jeff Smathers
>
> Rick wrote:
>
> >
> > test
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor(at)online.no> |
> cnichols wrote:
>
> To quote Tony Bingelis from one of his books, "Use as long a prop as you can
> for as long as you can." It's my understanding that the most efficient prop
> is one with only a single blade. Randy Schlitter (hey, just because he
> builds a different airplane doesn't mean he's nuts) says in his promotional
> material that he's never seen a 3-blade prop perform better than a 2-blade
> one. Apparently the only reason to go to a 3-blade prop is if you don't
> have enough clearance to use a 2-blade prop long enough to give you the
> proper bite. The only thing I don't understand from the above has to do
> with the maximum amount of pitch which can be dialed in. Obviously at some
> point the blade's "angle of attack" would become too great for efficient
> flying, or so it would appear to me.
Interesting this, but the reason why to choose the three blade over the
two, in general terms, might be:
Better thrust - give better acceleration - shorter take off distance -
and better climb.
A three blade is better suited for our "STOL" aircraft.
Also, but not often mentioned, a three blade give more friction when
backing off power, kind of air brake. Something not to be forgotten.
And lastly, less vibration in general.
If you like a more economical and more "efficient" propeller then select
the two blade, further a two blade will even be better at high altitude.
Torgeir.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick" <turboflyer(at)comcast.net> |
Would you believe they went to mount part of the new header tank.
do no archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jeff
Smathers
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: CG question
40lbs! What did you hang on those bracket mounts I sent you?
...and thanks for the CG data.
Jeff Smathers
Rick wrote:
>
> One degree forward on long wing C.G., most forward 10.35 most aft 12.57 ,
> empty weight 978lbs. Empty weight CG is 8.81. My radiator is mounted aft
of
> pilot not factory location, weight in tail and heavy RG35 battery aft
also.
> Also have the gap seal on the hozstab and plenty of authority on landing
> even at gross and some on a hot day. By the way you caused me to gain
40lbs.
> I had in my mind 938, hate it when I do that. :)
>
> Rick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jeff
> Smathers
> To: turboflyer(at)comcast.net; kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: CG question
>
>
> Hi Rick,
>
> I am nearing completion on my KF5 with the NSI Subaru EA-81 and CAP140
> and will be weighing the aircraft in a few days...I was wondering what is
> your
>
> CG limits and weight on your aircraft?
>
> John McBean said the CG was 9.96 to 14.75 ( one degree fwd wing sweep ).
> Is that what you are using?
>
> Thanks, Jeff Smathers
>
> Rick wrote:
>
> >
> > test
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RiteAngle3(at)aol.com |
Long two bladed prop tips often get to close to speed of sound so the large
engines that need the RPM for power use the three blades so they can turn max
RPM for engine. Those of you that are good in math figure the difference in
tip speeds at 2800 RPM on a 76" & a 72" prop, you will be amazed. Those of you
that live near a seaplane base just listen to the Cessna amphibians taking
off! Then compare the diameter of the two bladed props and the three bladed
props. It will be very evident the 3 blades are much quieter~ on the same engine.
Ground clearance is also a factor on some aircraft. The WW II prop planes
needed the blades to absorb the power developed and still have the prop short
enough so the pilot could lift the tail on take off. Look at the pitch on the
early Spitfires that had the fixed pitch wood props on them~~Took forever to
get moving, but once they did the did pretty well. Thankfully constant speed, or
controllable pitch props helped immensely.
I had a manually controllable Beech Roby prop on my old Funk (85 HP Cont.
engine) in the early '60's, was amazing it even speed it up at 7500 ft and above!
Elbie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michel <michel(at)online.no> |
Dear helping listers,
I exchanged a couple of emails with Steve Winder of Airdale and unfortunately
the Avid wheel penetration snow skis won't fit my wheels. Although it matches
my wheel size and axle diameter, my balloon tyres are simply too wide to fit
in the penetration hole. So, I am back to square one and thinking of building
my own.
Cheers,
Michel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | broschart <cfbflyer(at)localnet.com> |
better be careful or the friends of animals will get you
Have a good day - Charlie
dmorisse wrote:
>
>
> Bounced msg sent to old list.
> Darrel
> List Janitor
>
> To: "Kitfox(at)Sportflight.Com"
> Subject: Bird Strike on Model IV Being Built
> List
>
> Thought I would share my unfortunate experience today with a large bird. It
think it was what we in Texas call a Grakle. I had just finished sanding after
the second coat of Poly Spray on my rudder and was complimenting myself on a
job well done. As a reward I decided it was time for a break. So leaving my
garage door open I went into the house and sat in my favorite chair and relaxed
for about 15 minutes. When I returned to the garage, much to my disbelieve,
this bird was sitting on my beautiful rudder pecking away. I didn't know that
birds like Poly Spay. Perhaps he was looking for UV protection. It does not
appear that the pecking did any real damage. However, in the process of doing
my level best to commit murder with a broom, this beast landed on my rudder
with surch force that his claws tore a 1/2" hole in the rudder. So now I am
trying to decide whether to patch this hole and forever be reminded of this now
deceased critter or to recover the whole rudder.
>
> No need for anyone to be concerned that this bird might attach your airplane.
He is no longer capable.
>
> Maybe by tomorrow I will be able to laugh about this.
>
> Jimmie
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | broschart <cfbflyer(at)localnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Now Prop info needed |
i just used the feeler gage to set the pitch and it seemed smooth so
flew it without further measuring
i had a gsc wood 3 blade one which looked very nice but after 2 seasons
it needed refinishing which only lasted another 2 seasons, and i had to
paint the rear surface so i could see through it with the sun in the
rear of the plane
i found the wood prop very difficult to set even and after awhile i just
give up and go with it as it is, then there is the problem of the wood
compressing and the hub has to be sanded down 10 thousands
i couldn't get the tips to run with in the alignment spec until someone
said if you stand beside the prop when it is running you will see that
they line themselves up so i no longer worry about that setting
Have a good day - Charlie
Ron Carroll wrote:
>
>
> Charlie, I currently have a 2-blade Powerfin on my plane, and find it a little
harder to adjust. My problem is that while using a feeler gauge is nice, things
change slightly when the blades are torqued, as evidenced by the use of a
bubble protractor. I just use the bubble machine from the get-go so that I
don't have to do it twice.
>
> The reason I'm interested in a 3-blade prop is because the 2-blade I have is
about 2 or 3 inches too short. To compensate it must have too much pitch dialed
in to load the engine properly, affecting my take-off & climb.
>
> I can get one new blade and a 3-blade hub from Powerfin. They will cut off my
existing two blades to match & balance the new third blade. The cost for parts
& labor is nearly the cost of a new prop. This is why I asked for recommendations
for prop preferences. If I buy a whole new prop I can sell the old
one and get some of the cost back.
>
> Ron Carroll
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: broschart
> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 3:23 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Now Prop info needed
>
>
> i think you would like the Powerfin prop's feeler gage adjustment method
> better than the other methods used by other makes
>
> Have a good day - Charlie
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dmorisse" <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us> |
Very nice Grant. Build them yourself?
Darrel
> Hello All,
>
> I posted a picture of my ski dollies on the
> Sportflight website under "Gotta Haves".
>
> Grant Fluent
> Newcastle, NE
> Classic IV 912S
________________________________________________________________________________
How do the wheel penetration skis mount to the airplane.... I've got
cleveland wheels and brakes on mine. Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "michel" <michel(at)online.no>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Avid skis
>
> Dear helping listers,
>
> I exchanged a couple of emails with Steve Winder of Airdale and
unfortunately
> the Avid wheel penetration snow skis won't fit my wheels. Although it
matches
> my wheel size and axle diameter, my balloon tyres are simply too wide to
fit
> in the penetration hole. So, I am back to square one and thinking of
building
> my own.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Algate" <algate(at)attglobal.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Strut covers |
Bob
Mine are the Skystar strut covers but I purchased them from another List
member in the USA and for the life of me I can't remember his name. I'm sure
he will read this and hopefully drop us a line.
They are PVC and just snap together - I immediately gained 8mph cruise when
I fitted them.
They had to be painted but then took only about 2 hours to fit without
removing the wing struts.
Gary Algate
Lite2/582
>>>>>>>>>
Gary,, what was the cost of the strut covers,, shipping and all..I assume
they came from skystar or are they aftermarket type things. Bob U.
<<<<<<<<<
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Algate" <algate(at)attglobal.net> |
Michel
Are you able to take of in-field from the main run way and make use of the
snow there.
They allow us to do this a lot in Canada.
Gary Algate
Lite/582
----->>>>>>>
This is very nice, Darrel, you did an excellent job. But I already have this
kind of skis. The problem is, if I use them:
1) I'll need a dolly to put the plane on in order to get it in the hangar.
2) In March or April, my runway will most probably be barren asphalt but
around us and especially inland, there will still be a lot of snow. I will
then certainly fly but will be afraid to move away from the airfield since
an outfield landing would be very dangerous.
As a last resort, I can change my bungee gears for aluminium ones and use
the type of skis Gene shows us. But it is a costly solution and honestly, I
like the look of the old-fashion bungee gear.
<<<<<<
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vic Jacko" <vicwj(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Strut covers |
Gary, You bought the struts from yours truly. Glad you put them to good
use.
The streamlining of the "round" struts (lift, jury and stab) that are
exposed to the slipstream is the most single mod to increase the speed of
the Kitfox, next in line would be the wheels pants. Lastly would be the
elevator gap seal and the fuel caps.
With 100 or more horsepower available one should be able to increase their
top speed 10 to 15 MPH after they make all the mods!
Vic Jacko,
Roswell, NM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Algate" <algate(at)attglobal.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: RE: Strut covers
>
> Bob
>
> Mine are the Skystar strut covers but I purchased them from another List
> member in the USA and for the life of me I can't remember his name. I'm
sure
> he will read this and hopefully drop us a line.
>
> They are PVC and just snap together - I immediately gained 8mph cruise
when
> I fitted them.
>
> They had to be painted but then took only about 2 hours to fit without
> removing the wing struts.
>
> Gary Algate
> Lite2/582
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>
> Gary,, what was the cost of the strut covers,, shipping and all..I assume
> they came from skystar or are they aftermarket type things. Bob U.
> <<<<<<<<<
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michel <michel(at)online.no> |
>===== Original Message From "Gary Algate" <algate(at)attglobal.net>
>Are you able to take of in-field from the main run way and make use of the
>snow there.
In principle, yes, Gary. But since I live near the coast (the airfield is only
90 ft ASL) we don't get that much snow and by late winter, over the black
asphalt, it will melt away pretty quick. However, we may still have over two
meters snow in the hollow of certains valleys. As you know, snow is not an
even cover. I'd hate to have to land in deep snow with only my balloon tyres.
In my humble opinion, the "wheel penetration" skis are the only safe way to
fly in winter Norway.
Cheers,
Michel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Algate" <algate(at)attglobal.net> |
I think you're probably right Michel. The skis that I purchased from Vic are
also quite wide so they have a lot of flotation in soft snow. Last year I
landed at the end of a lake and got out to walk to the shore and disappeared
in snow up to my arm pits.
Its pretty amazing how well the SkyStar floats work
Gary Algate
Lite2/582s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'd hate to have to land in deep snow with only my balloon tyres. In my
humble opinion, the "wheel penetration" skis are the only safe way to
fly in winter Norway.
Cheers,
Michel
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jareds(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Metars on wireless web |
Looking for a good wireless cell phone metar site like cupitt aviation to access
Metars prior and during flights for wx and winds aloft. All the free ones seem
to have disappeared.
Any suggestions.
>
> From: Wwillyard(at)aol.com
> Date: 2003/12/08 Mon AM 06:02:10 CST
> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon problrm
- Now Pr...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh(at)rapidnet.com> |
Michel,
It would be simple to get new tires!
Randy
.
my balloon tyres are simply too wide to fit
in the penetration hole. So, I am back to square one and thinking of
building
my own.
Cheers,
Michel
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Algate" <algate(at)attglobal.net> |
I have posted the photos of my Skystar Fibreglass skis and home made tail
ski to the matronics photoshare site as accessed by shortcuts at footer of
the list emails. I don't know how long they will take to be posted.
Best regards,
Gary Algate
Lite2/582
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W Duke <n981ms(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Flight N913KF |
Congratulations.
Maxwell Duke S6 IO240 185hours and counting
Bill Hammond wrote:
So, now I have 36 minutes of Kitfox time in my log book. I have
thoroughly enjoyed the building and am looking forward to the
flying. My personal euphoria is exhilarating. All is right with
the world. As so may others on this list have stated... Blue Skies.
Bill Hammond
Parker, Colorado
Maxwell Duke
S6/IO240/Phase II Flight Testing
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
Would you both please contact me regarding shipments by SkyStar. Your e-mail
addresses, on your web page, are defunct.
Thanks.
Arthur Nation
Tacoma, WA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Algate" <algate(at)attglobal.net> |
I don't know how long it will take for the ski photos to show on the web and
I have forgotten the list members that wanted to see them. If you would like
to remind me I will send them directly to your private email address.
Michel, I had your address so I have already sent them to you.
Best regards.
Gary Algate
Lite2/582
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Algate" <algate(at)attglobal.net> |
Photos are uploaded to the Sportflight page under "add ons"
Gary Algate
Lite2/582
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall(at)comcast.net> |
Floran,
This list is certainly NOT for a certain clique. I encourage you to ask
questions as well as answer them whenever you feel like it. You, as well all
members, are welcome here. We have some posters who are quite prolific with
their messages and we appreciate the help, and we also have many lurkers who
have never posted a message.
We are all just a group of flyers and builders who have the same goal - to
help others in the group.
As far as subject lines go, some threads do change directions and the
subject should be changed. Please feel free to do that using your own
judgement.
Don Pearsall
List Janitor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kurt A. Schumacher" <Kurt.Schumacher(at)schumi.ch> |
>Is that a mirror in the left wing struts, Kurt? I guess it is to check if the
skis are in position, right?
Correct!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve M" <ondeck355(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Skystar's lift strut streamlining? |
I see on Skystar's website that they offer "streamline strut covers" for
models 4 thru 7, found at http://www.skystar.com/wings.htm . I assume these
are the plastic airfoil-shaped covers that should reduce the drag of
formerly round struts?
I have a Model 2. Anyone know why these would not fit my plane? It has round
steel-tube lift struts, I think either 5/8" or 3/4" in diameter. They're
pretty skinny, though being steel they are obviously strong enough for the
loads imposed.
I called Skystar, got only a recording saying they'll all back. In the
meantime, anyone know...?
Steve Maher
Kitfox Model 2, Geo Metro engine
San Diego, CA
Winterize your home with tips from MSN House & Home.
http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flier" <FLIER(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Skystar's lift strut streamlining? |
Steve,
I think the extruded PVC streamlining is made for the
1" lift struts and they're glued directly to the
strut so you'd have to make up for the smaller
diameter when you installed them but otherwise I
don't see why they wouldn't work. Some folks don't
like the weight they add as they're pretty dense but
many of us have used'em and they work fine.
Regards,
Ted
--- Original Message ---
From: "Steve M" <ondeck355(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar's lift strut
streamlining?
>
>I see on Skystar's website that they
offer "streamline strut covers" for
>models 4 thru 7, found at
http://www.skystar.com/wings.htm . I assume these
>are the plastic airfoil-shaped covers that should
reduce the drag of
>formerly round struts?
>
>I have a Model 2. Anyone know why these would not
fit my plane? It has round
>steel-tube lift struts, I think either 5/8" or 3/4"
in diameter. They're
>pretty skinny, though being steel they are obviously
strong enough for the
>loads imposed.
>
>I called Skystar, got only a recording saying
they'll all back. In the
>meantime, anyone know...?
>
>Steve Maher
>Kitfox Model 2, Geo Metro engine
>San Diego, CA
>
>Winterize your home with tips from MSN House & Home.
>http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx
>
>
>_-
======================================================
==================
Contributions
any other
Forums.
>_-
======================================================
==================
>_-
======================================================
==================
http://www.matronics.com/subscription
http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list
http://www.matronics.com/archives
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
list
http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>_-
======================================================
==================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "NSI AERO" <info(at)nsiaero.com> |
Hello Arthur,
Have not heard from you lately, I hope all is well.
Just received this e-mail from you, but was not sure if it was directed
to me or not?
Best regards,
Lance Wheeler
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Arthur
Nation
Subject: Kitfox-List: Banks Brothers
Would you both please contact me regarding shipments by SkyStar. Your
e-mail
addresses, on your web page, are defunct.
Thanks.
Arthur Nation
Tacoma, WA
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor(at)online.no> |
| Subject: | Re: Skystar's lift strut streamlining? |
> Steve M wrote:
> I have a Model 2. Anyone know why these would not fit my plane? It has round
> steel-tube lift struts, I think either 5/8" or 3/4" in diameter. They're
> pretty skinny, though being steel they are obviously strong enough for the
> loads imposed.
Hi Steve,
Think our mod II has 3/4" as you suggest, the mod III and IV is 1"
Torgeir.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "sid" <sid(at)i2k.com> |
| Subject: | Hmmmmnnn, not a bad idea........ |
Might be something for the factories in question to look at! Give one hell
of a rounded out line of small aircraft with terrific
versitility................
------------------
> It would be historically funny if Avid and SS were
> rejoined under new ownership.
>
> Kurt S.
>
> --- JMCBEAN wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have been hesitant to say anything........ I have
> > had several customers
> > call about the status of Avid, have heard some talk
> > about it and have had
> > potential customers come to Skystar for a tour after
> > they went to Avid.
> >
> > The bottom line of what I have heard is that Avid is
> > out of business... the
> > hanger in MT is empty and people are looking for the
> > assets which seem to be
> > "on the move".
> >
> > Blue Skies!!
> > John & Debra McBean
> > "The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
>
> __________________________________
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Strut covers |
Gary,,, What's the cost?? and are they shippable ??
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Algate" <algate(at)attglobal.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: RE: Strut covers
>
> Bob
>
> Mine are the Skystar strut covers but I purchased them from another List
> member in the USA and for the life of me I can't remember his name. I'm
sure
> he will read this and hopefully drop us a line.
>
> They are PVC and just snap together - I immediately gained 8mph cruise
when
> I fitted them.
>
> They had to be painted but then took only about 2 hours to fit without
> removing the wing struts.
>
> Gary Algate
> Lite2/582
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>
> Gary,, what was the cost of the strut covers,, shipping and all..I assume
> they came from skystar or are they aftermarket type things. Bob U.
> <<<<<<<<<
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood(at)mcsi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon problrm - |
Now Pr...
Hi Floran,
Please don't get upset over this.
The purpose of the "Subject" is so newbes and the rest of us can go back thru
the archives looking for emails regarding a"subject" of which we have an
interest.
I requently, tho not always, change the subject when I reply, if appropriate.
I've been on this list for a long time, and am not aware of any cliques. There
are some of us who really do try to give helpful advice. And so you may see
more emails from us.
I selectively read this lists emails, so when I see a subject which is of no
interest to me, such as the recent volume of "Ski" talk, I just delete them
without reading. If you were to respond with a "problem" which I might be able
to give some helpful advice, but do not use an appropriate "subject", I'll never
see it, and thus can't provide help.
I hope I have provided some clarity on the need for proper "Subject".
Regards,
bh
ex-N194KF, 582ed IV-1200, 800+ hrs
N321SX Sonex, Jab 3300ed, 59.1 hrs
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another 'Latest update' Re: Newbie flaperon problrm -
Now Pr...
>
> My comments were in response to e-mails by Ron Carroll and others
> concerning props. I didn't know it had to do with a certain subject matter.
> I sometimes get the impression that this list is for a certain clique and
> the rest of us should keep quiet. Floran H.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cnichols" <cnichols(at)scrtc.com> |
I have a dent on the aluminum leading edge of one of my flapperons which I think
must have occurred when the plane, a Model IV 1200, was trailered to me. It's
maybe 3 inches long by 3/4 inches high by about 1/4 inch deep. Needless to
say the paint was knocked off in that area leaving the exposed bare metal. I
want to repair this, but have no idea what product to use. Aircraft Spruce &
Speciality have several products which sound OK on paper, but I'd like to see
what the group recommends based on experience rather than hype. Obviously I'll
want to paint this area when it's filled in and sanded smooth. The color is
a canary yellow, but I have no idea what type paint the builder used. Any suggestions
there would also be appreciated.
Clem Nichols
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dee Young" <henrysfork1(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flaperon repair |
There are lots of different kinds of paint out there. You might go to the local
automotive paint supplier and purchase a special etching primer made for application
to aluminum. I would strip both flaps and apply the etching primer to
the aluminum flap followed up by a select automotive paint that closely matches
your existing color. This will take away the guess work of what your dealing
with.
Dee Young
Model II
N345DY
----- Original Message -----
From: cnichols
To: kitfox-list
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 5:36 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Flaperon repair
I have a dent on the aluminum leading edge of one of my flapperons which I think
must have occurred when the plane, a Model IV 1200, was trailered to me.
It's maybe 3 inches long by 3/4 inches high by about 1/4 inch deep. Needless
to say the paint was knocked off in that area leaving the exposed bare metal.
I want to repair this, but have no idea what product to use. Aircraft Spruce
& Speciality have several products which sound OK on paper, but I'd like to see
what the group recommends based on experience rather than hype. Obviously
I'll want to paint this area when it's filled in and sanded smooth. The color
is a canary yellow, but I have no idea what type paint the builder used. Any
suggestions there would also be appreciated.
Clem Nichols
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gene m. calkins" <calkinsgm(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flaperon repair |
Clem about the dent if you know someone that works in a bodyshop he may
get the dent out with very little filler. Gene N99GC
----- Original Message -----
From: "cnichols" <cnichols(at)scrtc.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Flaperon repair
>
> I have a dent on the aluminum leading edge of one of my flapperons which I
think must have occurred when the plane, a Model IV 1200, was trailered to
me. It's maybe 3 inches long by 3/4 inches high by about 1/4 inch deep.
Needless to say the paint was knocked off in that area leaving the exposed
bare metal. I want to repair this, but have no idea what product to use.
Aircraft Spruce & Speciality have several products which sound OK on paper,
but I'd like to see what the group recommends based on experience rather
than hype. Obviously I'll want to paint this area when it's filled in and
sanded smooth. The color is a canary yellow, but I have no idea what type
paint the builder used. Any suggestions there would also be appreciated.
>
> Clem Nichols
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ceashman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Flaperon repair |
To Clem Nichols.
My suggestion would be to use "Superfil" a Polyfiber product. An easy to use
product with good fill and good adhesion, also to bare aluminum. P/N 09-28250
Page #40 in the Spruce catalogue. Remember to remove all lose and flaking
paint and sand the good existing finish with # 180 grit paper dry. The Superfil
should stick very good to the sanded existing finish, providing there is not
too much film build. The only problem is that the Superfil is slow drying.
You will probably have to apply a second coat (to smooth things out and fill
in the pin holes from the first application) as with all body fillers! But it
does sand really good as compared to many polyester fillers, like Feather fill.
Use a small sanding block and finish sanding with # 320 grit paper and finish
the area around the repair with # 500 grit dry. I would use Tempo Zinc
Chromate Primer (aerosol 'cause it is easy) Page #307 of the Spruce catalogue.
And
only spray the repair area.
For the color, take the flaperon to a friendly bodyshop or bodyshop supply
jobber and ask them to colormatch the yellow. The type of top coat will probably
be a urethane, so you will need a hardener and reducer. Don't forget to use a
respirator when spraying. Hope this helps.
Eric Ashman. Atlanta GA. Classic IV N893. 26 hours and loving it!
e-mail; ceashman(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Tomlin" <thomastomlin(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Grove Aircraft's outstanding service |
A note about the outstanding service I received by Robbie at
http://www.groveaircraft.com.
I chose to replace the Matco brake slave cylinders with Groves.
The cylinders I ordered were 1/4 inch too long so I disassembled
them and chucked them in the lathe to turn the shaft down This
would allow me to extend the threads down the shaft with a die.
I messed one up when I didn't get it tight enough in the old lathe
and I galled the shaft, along with messing up the threads.
This of course, ruined the shaft and caused me to utter a few
discouraging words, as I now needed to order a new one.
So with my head hanging a bit low, I picked up the phone.
I called and was put through to Robbie Grove. I explained what I
had done so he would know what part I would need when he said
"No problem, I'll just send you a new one without charge, if I could
get your name again and address..." I had to pick my chin up off
the couch! Again I said I caused the problem and offered to pay
for my machining misadventure. He said no, that's okay.
Not only that, he said you may need some extra parts so I'll throw
in some extra O rings and a couple Snap rings too. WOW!
Mighty impressive customer service!
Oh yeah...his CNC machined parts look superb......
that is until someone monkeys with em....
Tom Tomlin
Greeley Colorado
IV Speedster
Fuselage on the rotisserie, preparing to cover.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | DC-3 flown 2/3 of the years since the 100th Anniversary of |
flight.
| From: | "Paul A. Franz, P.E." <paul(at)eucleides.com> |
Worlds secondhand fleet still soars
The DC-3 is no mere airplane: It defined the airline business and
set a standard for decades of commercial flight. On the 100th
anniversary of powered flight, the DC-3 has the honor of having
regularly flown passengers and cargo for more than two-thirds of that
time. But it is hardly the only old airplane to grace a fleet.
<http://www.msnbc.com/news/997995.asp?0ql=c9p>
or the same thing but an easier link
<http://tinyurl.com/ydab>
--
PAF Consulting Engineers | 427 - 140th Ave NE
(425)641-8202 voice | Bellevue, WA 98005
(425)641-1773 fax |
GnuPG Public Key - <http://eucleides.com/pgpkey.asc>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Magdic" <steve.magdic(at)1psg.com> |
Being new to the KitFox and 912, I am in need of some of your opinions.
I am experiencing rather high oil temps at cruise rpm (5000+). I have what
seems to be a standard oil cooler mounted inside the lower cowl opening.
It looks as though the cooler is pretty much exposed to incoming airflow.
Has there been modifications/improvements to the oil radiator system due to
high temps?
Thanks in advance for your input.
Steve Magdic
Model 3 / 4 Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Algate" <algate(at)attglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Skystar's lift strut streamlining? |
Steve
The fairings are made to clip around the actual strut so in your case they
would be a pretty sloppy fit. You may be able to just wrap something like
aluminum tape around the strut every foot to build the diameter back up to
the required 1" so that the plastic clamps tight.
I don't know if that would be suffuicient but I'm sure you could make
something up to increase the diameter at regular intervals to support the
fairing
Gary Algate
Lite2/582
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Skystar's lift strut streamlining? |
Gary,,,, My struts are 1",, so why anything else needed. Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Algate" <algate(at)attglobal.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Skystar's lift strut streamlining?
>
> Steve
>
> The fairings are made to clip around the actual strut so in your case they
> would be a pretty sloppy fit. You may be able to just wrap something like
> aluminum tape around the strut every foot to build the diameter back up to
> the required 1" so that the plastic clamps tight.
>
> I don't know if that would be suffuicient but I'm sure you could make
> something up to increase the diameter at regular intervals to support the
> fairing
>
> Gary Algate
> Lite2/582
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Algate" <algate(at)attglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Skystar's lift strut streamlining? |
Bob
If you have the standard Model 4 struts you don't need anything else, the
kit comes with the struts and the aluminum cover that goes around the v
intersection of the two struts. It's just a matter of cutting the covers to
length and relieving a couple of areas to clear the Jury struts etc and then
you can glue them to the struts using hysol. In my case I didn't glue them
as I do a lot of float fling and I like the fact that I can just unclip
them to inspect the struts for corrosion during my annual inspection.
When the trailing edge of the fairings snap together they will not move.
I was referring to Steve's 3/4" struts when I suggested the mods.
Regards
Gary Algate
Lite2/582
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gary,,,, My struts are 1",, so why anything else needed. Bob U.
> Steve
>
> The fairings are made to clip around the actual strut so in your case
> they would be a pretty sloppy fit. You may be able to just wrap
> something like aluminum tape around the strut every foot to build the
> diameter back up to the required 1" so that the plastic clamps tight.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)inreach.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 Oil Temps |
Steve,
Most, I think find that the standard oil cooler tends to overcool. I have
seen a lot of taped oil coolers especially in colder months. I have cockpit
controllable flaps on mine and most often run with the flaps closed or at
least partially closed.
One thought comes to mind - have you calibrated the gauge - sender.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Magdic" <steve.magdic(at)1psg.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 912 Oil Temps
>
> Being new to the KitFox and 912, I am in need of some of your opinions.
> I am experiencing rather high oil temps at cruise rpm (5000+). I have what
> seems to be a standard oil cooler mounted inside the lower cowl opening.
> It looks as though the cooler is pretty much exposed to incoming airflow.
>
> Has there been modifications/improvements to the oil radiator system due
to
> high temps?
>
> Thanks in advance for your input.
> Steve Magdic
> Model 3 / 4 Wings
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RiteAngle3(at)aol.com |
nothing beats the sound of the ole
>radials running on the C-46.
Minor typo, but that is OK, C-46 is just one stroke away from C 47! It was
nearly twice as big, and had Wonderful sounding radials also! Saw one still
flying at the Alaska Aviation Trade Show in '02. My best friend flew them for
Zantop in the '60's We parked next to each other unknowingly at Kansas City
once, from the cockpit of the '46 you looked down on the '47 airplane! Big bird.
Elbie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RiteAngle3(at)aol.com |
Paul, is your e-mail address correct on the list, sent you a note off line
and it bounced, copied & pasted from list message.
paul(at)eucleides.com returned message said user unknown
Elbie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Skis - several beautiful photos. |
| From: | "Paul A. Franz, P.E." <paul(at)eucleides.com> |
On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 11:10, Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
>
> Here is a good Kitfox ski view http://www.gletscherflug.ch/albums/album05/abu.jpg (Kitfox IV Speedster F-PSDX - Alain Gabus,
> Switzerland)
>
Check out this album showing lots of skis. So cool.
<http://www.gletscherflug.ch/gallery/album01/aac>
The beauty of no. 69 photo is awesome.
--
PAF Consulting Engineers | 427 - 140th Ave NE
(425)641-8202 voice | Bellevue, WA 98005
(425)641-1773 fax |
GnuPG Public Key - <http://eucleides.com/pgpkey.asc>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Skystar's lift strut streamlining? |
Gary,, I have the 4 but now farings and am looking to buy some and was
wondering whether to use plastic or aluminum or wook?? Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Algate" <algate(at)attglobal.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Skystar's lift strut streamlining?
>
> Bob
>
> If you have the standard Model 4 struts you don't need anything else, the
> kit comes with the struts and the aluminum cover that goes around the v
> intersection of the two struts. It's just a matter of cutting the covers
to
> length and relieving a couple of areas to clear the Jury struts etc and
then
> you can glue them to the struts using hysol. In my case I didn't glue
them
> as I do a lot of float fling and I like the fact that I can just unclip
> them to inspect the struts for corrosion during my annual inspection.
>
> When the trailing edge of the fairings snap together they will not move.
>
> I was referring to Steve's 3/4" struts when I suggested the mods.
>
> Regards
>
> Gary Algate
> Lite2/582
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Gary,,,, My struts are 1",, so why anything else needed. Bob U.
>
> > Steve
> >
> > The fairings are made to clip around the actual strut so in your case
> > they would be a pretty sloppy fit. You may be able to just wrap
> > something like aluminum tape around the strut every foot to build the
> > diameter back up to the required 1" so that the plastic clamps tight.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Paul Franz |
| From: | "Paul A. Franz, P.E." <paul(at)eucleides.com> |
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 08:09, RiteAngle3(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Paul, is your e-mail address correct on the list, sent you a note off line
> and it bounced, copied & pasted from list message.
> paul(at)eucleides.com returned message said user unknown
> Elbie
Please forward the bounced message complete with all headers.
Thanks.
>
--
PAF Consulting Engineers | 427 - 140th Ave NE
(425)641-8202 voice | Bellevue, WA 98005
(425)641-1773 fax |
GnuPG Public Key - <http://eucleides.com/pgpkey.asc>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Algate" <algate(at)attglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Skystar's lift strut streamlining? |
Bob
There are a lot of different views on what is best. I liked the plastic
fairings because they were so easy to fit and I didn't have to remove the
struts. They are a bit heavier than the aluminum covers or wood but they
sure are quick and easy to fit.
Best regards
Gary Algate
Lite2/582
---->>>>>>>>
Gary,, I have the 4 but now farings and am looking to buy some and was
wondering whether to use plastic or aluminum or wook?? Bob U.
<<<<<<<<<<<
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "doug kulick" <kitfoxjet(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Flight N913KF |
Hello: i see that your subject was my aircraft number ... what original
message did you see with it ... I never posted such a message? Just
interested you can call me too.. 800-337-5200 cheers Doug Kulick
>From: W Duke <n981ms(at)yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: First Flight N913KF
>Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:07:01 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>Congratulations.
>Maxwell Duke S6 IO240 185hours and counting
>
>Bill Hammond wrote:
>
>
>So, now I have 36 minutes of Kitfox time in my log book. I have
>thoroughly enjoyed the building and am looking forward to the
>flying. My personal euphoria is exhilarating. All is right with
>the world. As so may others on this list have stated... Blue Skies.
>
>Bill Hammond
>Parker, Colorado
>
>
>Maxwell Duke
>S6/IO240/Phase II Flight Testing
>
>---------------------------------
>
>
Take advantage of our best MSN Dial-up offer of the year six months
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "doug kulick" <kitfoxjet(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Flight N913KF |
SORRY ALL... I need to use my glasses...not my aircraft!! cheers Doug
>From: W Duke <n981ms(at)yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: First Flight N913KF
>Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:07:01 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>Congratulations.
>Maxwell Duke S6 IO240 185hours and counting
>
>Bill Hammond wrote:
>
>
>So, now I have 36 minutes of Kitfox time in my log book. I have
>thoroughly enjoyed the building and am looking forward to the
>flying. My personal euphoria is exhilarating. All is right with
>the world. As so may others on this list have stated... Blue Skies.
>
>Bill Hammond
>Parker, Colorado
>
>
>Maxwell Duke
>S6/IO240/Phase II Flight Testing
>
>---------------------------------
>
>
Cell phone switch rules are taking effect find out more here.
http://special.msn.com/msnbc/consumeradvocate.armx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Anderson" <janderson412(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flaperon repair |
Just an other thing, should there not be some thought given to extra weight being
added to a flaperon. A/C crontrol surfaces are critical when it comes to ballance
and caution is advised just in painting to ensure even cover for this reason
so adding a lump of filler in one spot might not be so good. IMHO
From: Ceashman(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Flaperon repair
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 00:09:55 EST
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Ceashman(at)aol.com
To Clem Nichols.
My suggestion would be to use "Superfil" a Polyfiber product. An easy to use
productwith good fill and good adhesion, also to bare aluminum. P/N 09-28250
Page #40 in the Spruce catalogue. Remember to remove all lose and flaking
paint and sand the good existing finish with # 180 grit paper dry. The Superfil
should stick very good to the sanded existing finish, providing there is not
too much film build. The only problem is that the Superfil is slow drying.
You will probably have to apply a second coat (to smooth things out and fill
in the pin holes from the first application) as with all body fillers! But it
does sand really good as compared to many polyester fillers, like Feather fill.
Use a small sanding block and finish sanding with # 320 grit paper and finish
the area around the repair with # 500 grit dry. I would use Tempo Zinc
Chromate Primer (aerosol 'cause it is easy) Page #307 of the Spruce catalogue.
And
only spray the repair area.
For the color, take the flaperon to a friendly bodyshop or bodyshop supply
jobber and ask them to colormatch the yellow. The type of top coat will probably
be a urethane, so you will need a hardener and reducer. Don't forget to use a
respirator when spraying. Hope this helps.
Eric Ashman. Atlanta GA. Classic IV N893. 26 hours and loving it!
e-mail; ceashman(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Michaud" <d.michaud(at)web.de> |
| Subject: | Fw: Installation of a Jabiru engine in a Kitfox |
----- Original Message -----
From: David Michaud
Subject: Installation of a Jabiru engine in a Kitfox
Hi List
I am an AP-IA, I amcurrently working on a kitfox III with US registration.I have
a couple of problems that I hope some of you can help me with. A customer asked
me to certify the installtion of a Jabiru engine and mount (normaly a Rotax
is installed) Both were already installed before I was asked to look at the
aircraft,It was done very well and with the installation I have no problems. The
question is what do I do know? I do not work on experimental aircraft very
often, this is a major alteration,so do I need to write up an FAA form 337 or
do I even need to inform the FAA of the engine change? (I want to stay leagl)
or is a DAR required for this installation?
Also can anyone anser the question of who can legaly preform the annual insp of
an exprimental acft?
Thank you Dave
d.michaud(at)web.de
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Mckiernan" <ROCKYJS(at)peoplepc.com> |
| Subject: | Unsubscribing from kitfox list |
I have been unsuccessful in unsubscribing from the kitfox list. Please help to
remove my email address from this list.
Thanks
John McKiernan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Installation of a Jabiru engine in a Kitfox |
I think it depends how the original airworthness certificate was issued. If
it was originally built with the Jab then there is nothing to do. If not
the local FSDO must be contacted and request an ammended Certificate and
flight restrictions. I'm not sure about what form to use but don't think
it's a 337. The annual condition inspection can be performed by the
original builders certificate holder or any A&P. bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Michaud" <d.michaud(at)web.de>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Fw: Installation of a Jabiru engine in a Kitfox
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Michaud
> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Installation of a Jabiru engine in a Kitfox
>
>
> Hi List
>
> I am an AP-IA, I amcurrently working on a kitfox III with US
registration.I have a couple of problems that I hope some of you can help me
with. A customer asked me to certify the installtion of a Jabiru engine and
mount (normaly a Rotax is installed) Both were already installed before I
was asked to look at the aircraft,It was done very well and with the
installation I have no problems. The question is what do I do know? I do not
work on experimental aircraft very often, this is a major alteration,so do
I need to write up an FAA form 337 or do I even need to inform the FAA of
the engine change? (I want to stay leagl) or is a DAR required for this
installation?
> Also can anyone anser the question of who can legaly preform the annual
insp of an exprimental acft?
>
> Thank you Dave
>
> d.michaud(at)web.de
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JMCBEAN" <JDMCBEAN(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: Installation of a Jabiru engine in a Kitfox |
If this aircraft had its airworthiness inspection done already then it would
have limitations that were given at the time of the inspection. Review
those limitations and it may advise on what needs to be done. For
example... if I was to change my engine or prop I need to send a letter to
the local FSDO advising of the change and the requested fly-off area.
Typically it requires a 5 hour fly-off. All log book entries would need to
be made.
Blue Skies!!
John & Debra McBean
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of David Michaud
Subject: Kitfox-List: Fw: Installation of a Jabiru engine in a Kitfox
----- Original Message -----
From: David Michaud
Subject: Installation of a Jabiru engine in a Kitfox
Hi List
I am an AP-IA, I amcurrently working on a kitfox III with US registration.I
have a couple of problems that I hope some of you can help me with. A
customer asked me to certify the installtion of a Jabiru engine and mount
(normaly a Rotax is installed) Both were already installed before I was
asked to look at the aircraft,It was done very well and with the
installation I have no problems. The question is what do I do know? I do not
work on experimental aircraft very often, this is a major alteration,so do
I need to write up an FAA form 337 or do I even need to inform the FAA of
the engine change? (I want to stay leagl) or is a DAR required for this
installation?
Also can anyone anser the question of who can legaly preform the annual
insp of an exprimental acft?
Thank you Dave
d.michaud(at)web.de
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JMCBEAN" <JDMCBEAN(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | A Century of Flight |
thought. I cant be at Kitty Hawk physically but will most definitely be
there spiritually.
Blue Skies!!
John & Debra McBean
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kitfox" <Kitfox(at)chrisbates.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: lift strut streamlining |
If it's of any help I purchased a set of moulded plastic lift strut fairings
from Terry Raber at Streamline.
All you do is slice one edge and fit tem on trimming as required, mine are
filled at the ends with some expanded foam and sanded down.
The original set arrived flat thanks to the carrier but Terry sent a
replacement set in 48 hrs and I got to keep the originals which I chopped up
and intend to use on my u/c legs.
First class service and they fit nice and snug to the lift strut tubing.
if anyone needs it his email is streamlineco(at)yahoo.com>
Chris
MKII - UK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Algate" <algate(at)attglobal.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Skystar's lift strut streamlining?
>
> Bob
>
> If you have the standard Model 4 struts you don't need anything else, the
> kit comes with the struts and the aluminum cover that goes around the v
> intersection of the two struts. It's just a matter of cutting the covers
to
> length and relieving a couple of areas to clear the Jury struts etc and
then
> you can glue them to the struts using hysol. In my case I didn't glue
them
> as I do a lot of float fling and I like the fact that I can just unclip
> them to inspect the struts for corrosion during my annual inspection.
>
> When the trailing edge of the fairings snap together they will not move.
>
> I was referring to Steve's 3/4" struts when I suggested the mods.
>
> Regards
>
> Gary Algate
> Lite2/582
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Gary,,,, My struts are 1",, so why anything else needed. Bob U.
>
> > Steve
> >
> > The fairings are made to clip around the actual strut so in your case
> > they would be a pretty sloppy fit. You may be able to just wrap
> > something like aluminum tape around the strut every foot to build the
> > diameter back up to the required 1" so that the plastic clamps tight.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless(at)barefootpilot.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A Century of Flight |
John,
We plan to be flying. Probably will have a bunch of locals doing the same.
Cliff
>
> thought. I cant be at Kitty Hawk physically but will most definitely be
> there spiritually.
>
> Blue Skies!!
> John & Debra McBean
> "The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Pleso" <bill77(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A Century of Flight |
My wife and I will be at Kitty Hawk for the entire week. All of the
officers and their spouces from EAA Chapter 1171 (my wife is the treasurer)
will be there and helping out at the EAA booth on Monday. It's still up in
the air (no pun intended) as to whether we'll drive or fly. Our chapter is
in New Bern N.C. so it's only 30min. by air (but 3.5 hrs. by car). If any
of you are there, please stop by (with pictures of your planes). Since I've
only just started on our Model 4 Classic, I have lots of questions and would
like to talk with you if you have a few minutes to spare. I'll try to post
some pictures of the celebration and put a link to it so I can share them
with you.
Later
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "JMCBEAN" <JDMCBEAN(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: A Century of Flight
>
> thought. I cant be at Kitty Hawk physically but will most definitely be
> there spiritually.
>
> Blue Skies!!
> John & Debra McBean
> "The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aerobatics(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: A Century of Flight |
In a message dated 12/9/2003 4:06:49 PM Central Standard Time,
JDMCBEAN(at)cableone.net writes:
> thought. I cant be at Kitty Hawk physically but will most definitely be
> there spiritually.
>
I wish!!!
I have to be in China on a business trip ..:-(
Dave KF2 582 BH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ceashman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Flaperon repair |
No problem. If you have used Superfil by Poly-Fiber, you will notice that it
is very lightweight. I have been around bodyfillers for about 30 years and,
they have become light weight, but it is amazing how feather weight this
Superfil is! And approximately 2 oz. of filler on the leading edge of the flaperon
should not be an issue. As long as the surface is smooth and there is nothing
to spoil the air flow.
Eric Ashman
e-mail; ceashman(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John E. King " <kingjohn(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | [Fwd: Prop link test] |
To the Desert Fox Group,
John Sieberts who lives in Sedona, Az would like to get in contact with
your group. His phone number and e-mail is listed below.
John is building a Series 6 Kitfox.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Prop link test
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 07:08:43 -0800
From: John &Sally Sieberts <ssiebs(at)earthlink.net>
Hi John, good talking with you yesterday. Amazing all the neat stuff out
their eh. How'd the test flight go? Will you have the Desert Fox group
near PHX contact me. Thanks John Sieberts Ph # 928 284-3141 in
Sedona, Az.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)inreach.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A Century of Flight |
John, I think I an make it - weather permitting. I will be in the pattern
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "JMCBEAN" <JDMCBEAN(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: A Century of Flight
>
> thought. I cant be at Kitty Hawk physically but will most definitely be
> there spiritually.
>
> Blue Skies!!
> John & Debra McBean
> "The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "doug kulick" <kitfoxjet(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | model 1200-4 large cargo compartment pod |
HI All:
I am lookin to buy a used or new 1993 era belly pod the one that fit into
the landing gear etc...
does anyone have pros or cons on the unit...over heating etc call
800-227-5200 cheers , Doug kulick
Winterize your home with tips from MSN House & Home.
http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John E. King " <kingjohn(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | PropLink Hydraulic Hub |
To the List:
As most of you know I purchased a PropLink in-flight adjustable
propeller for my Series 6 Kitfox powered by a Rotax 912S. At that time
I chose to use the PowerFin 72" three bladed propeller. The PropLink
hubs are designed to accommodate either the PowerFin or WarpDrive blades
(two or three blade configurations). I was very satisfied with the
performance I was experiencing with their mechanical hub. My cruise
speed increased from 105 mph using a ground adjustable PowerFin 72"
3-three bladed propeller to 120 mph with the PropLink hub and the same
blades. Clime out increased to 1200 fps. I was also impressed with the
other benefits offered by an in-flight propeller that I had never
experienced before. I was one happy camper.
Late last September, PropLink asked me to consider trying out their
newly designed hydraulic version of the same propeller hub. They
claimed that the hydraulic hub offered several advantages over the all
mechanical controlled hub. It was identical in external appearance and
could accommodate the same two blade types. The basic difference is
that instead of a mechanical arm driven by a panel mounted vernier
controlling the pitch of the blades, a hydraulic piston inside the hub
was driven by a valve assemble controlled by the same type of panel
mounted vernier. It uses the oil from the engine and therefore no
separate hydraulic pump or oil is required.
The deal was that I could keep the hydraulic hub and return the
mechanical hub if I felt satisfied with its performance and preferred it
over the mechanical version. Since that time I have been test flying
the hydraulic hub in my Series 6 using both my 72" PowerFin blades and a
set of 68" WarpDrive blades on loan from PropLink.
I first started my testing with the 72" PowerFin blades I used in the
Mechanical hub. This is the Type F blades that PowerFin recommends
specifically for the 912 series Rotax engines. Two stroke engines use a
different model blade. I soon found out that the current Type F
PowerFin blades were not suited for this version of the hydraulic hub
(Model HD1). The in-flight back pressure developed by that blade design
was excessive, to the point that the three blades would not advance to
full pitch at cruise speeds, or in my case, rpm's at 5000 and above. On
the ground, this back pressure was less and the hub was able to cycle.
PropLink's follow on discussions with PowerFin confirm that the Type F
Blade was not well suited to this version (Model HD1) of the hydraulic
hub. It might be fine on other variable prop hubs. For example
PropLink's Legacy hub (using a governor control) should work fine with a
PowerFin Type F Blade. Although it functioned well on the PropLink's
mechanical hub, it presented above normal loads on the vernier control.
To correct for this in the hydraulic hub, PropLink would have to
increase the size of the piston in the hub.
As it turns out, PowerFin is now in the process of developing a new
blade design that is better suited for variable pitch applications. The
amount of blade back pressure will be significantly reduced to the point
that the current PropLink hydraulic hub design should function as
originally intended. PowerFin expects the new blade design to become
available by mid to late summer of 2004.
The remainder of the flight testing was focused on the performance for
the Warp Drive blades in the PropLink hydraulic hub. The Warp blades
were each two inches shorter in length resulting in a 68" diameter and
were square on the tips (not the tapered design). As most of you know,
the Warp blades have a very narrow profile, far less that that of the
wider profile PowerFin blades. Since the center of thrust in the Warp
blades is in the center of the blade axis, there is some back pressure
but it is much less. So little that the PropLink hub design has to
incorporate a stronger return spring to return the blades to the flat
position when less pitch is required. Once a stronger spring was
installed the prop blades performed as expected over the full rpm range
of the engine.
Based on the flight testing I have done to date, the performance of the
PropLink hydraulic hub with the Warp Drive blades exceeds that of the
PropLink mechanical hub with the PowerFin blades. I was able to sustain
an IAS of 125 mph at 5300 rpm and a manifold pressure of 26" without
utilizing the full pitch range. With the PropLink mechanical hub using
the PowerFin blades I was only able to sustain an IAS of 120 mph at 5400
rpm and a manifold pressure of 25" utilizing the full pitch range. It
is my feeling and also that of PropLink that the performance difference
between the two hub designs is primarily due to the increased pitch
range of the hydraulic hub over that of the mechanical hub and not that
of the different blade designs.
The performance of the new design PowerFin blades in the PropLink
hydraulic hub will have to wait until they become available next summer
and testing can begin. My personal feeling is that it should at least
equal that of the Warp blades, maybe even better, we'll see.
The PropLink Hydraulic hub offers several advantages over that of their
mechanical hub. First, it offers a larger pitch range, far more than is
useable on the 912 series. Second, it presents less control forces to
the control vernier. Third, the installation setup is easier than that
of the mechanical hub. Fourth, the vernier control cable is narrower
and more flexible than that of the mechanical version. This makes it
easier to route the control cable around objects forward of the
firewall. An additional feature of the hydraulic hub is that it is
suitable for constant speed applications. All that is required is the
addition of a PropLink control governor that is far less expensive than
that currently provided by Rotax. The actual release date for the
control governor has not yet been announced by PropLink. Oh yes, the
hydraulic hub is about 2 pounds lighter.
I personally prefer the hydraulic hub over that of the mechanical hub
for the above reasons, however, I would have been happy with the
mechanical hub had I not had the opportunity to test out the hydraulic
hub. Performance is not the only difference. The price of the two hubs
is the same, at least when I last checked their web site.
Having never previously flown behind a variable pitch prop, I am amazed
at how much performance can be derived out of a variable pitch propeller
over that of increasing horsepower. Increasing horsepower comes with a
lot of penalties, far greater than that of changing prop
configurations. Provided that is, your prop is properly matched to your
engine. There are a lot of variable pitch props on the market today for
light aircraft engines like the Rotax, most of which are electrically
driven. I am not one of those who feels comfortable depending on
electrical motors forward of the firewall to stay in the air. That is
why I spent the extra money looking for a mechanical or hydraulic
variable pitch prop. I say this because I am have often been asked why
I went this way. That's just my rational.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood(at)mcsi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A Century of Flight |
Hi John,
Many of the members of the Oregon Antique & Classic Airplane Club plan a group
flight out pf the Cottage Grove/Creswell area at that time. I'll try to join
in, weather permitting.
Bruce
> thought. I cant be at Kitty Hawk physically but will most definitely be
> there spiritually.
>
> Blue Skies!!
> John & Debra McBean
> "The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "martin dovey" <kitfox.england(at)ntlworld.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A Century of Flight |
My flying buddies and I will be up at 15.35GMT on the 17th. We
plan to fly over Brooklands aerodrome, birthplace of British
aviation.
We will follow up with a BIG fancy dress party. (Aviation theme
of course)
Martin Dovey
Kitfox 3.5
G-BTSV
----- Original Message -----
From: "JMCBEAN" <JDMCBEAN(at)cableone.net>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | broschart <cfbflyer(at)localnet.com> |
why is it that the kitfox new system repeats the sender name and address
with my netscape 4.5 this moves the start of the message data on to the
next page making it necessary to scroll down to see any of the message
data.
with the old system i could see the beginning of the message data and if
not of interest delete the posting, now i have the sender address
repeated and need to scroll down a page to see any of the message data,
an annoying inconvenience
Have a good day - Charlie
>
>
> Hello: i see that your subject was my aircraft number ... what original
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kurt A. Schumacher" <Kurt.Schumacher(at)schumi.ch> |
Fully supporting Charlie! Some list readers I know are forwarding the first lines
to low bandwidth devices, e.g. GSM-SMS or pagers,
and this line just takes away a good part of the available text length.
If - and only if - this line is really required - good e-mail clients shows the
original sender as "on behalf of" in the header
info. Convinced it might be added to the footer instead. Matt can change this easily.
It has been seen on AeroElectric-List hosted
by Matt for some days, too.
Some mailers tend to add (here an example from AeroElectrics-List):
"on 12/9/03 10:14 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III at bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net wrote:"
This is another unnecessary annoyance.
-Kurt.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of broschart
Subject: Kitfox-List: leading address
why is it that the kitfox new system repeats the sender name and address with my
netscape 4.5 this moves the start of the message
data on to the next page making it necessary to scroll down to see any of the message
data. with the old system i could see the
beginning of the message data and if not of interest delete the posting, now i
have the sender address repeated and need to scroll
down a page to see any of the message data, an annoying inconvenience
Have a good day - Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Chaney <mdps_mc(at)swoca.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: Installation of a Jabiru engine in a Kitfox |
When I replaced my 582 with a Jabiru I had to file and sign some paper work
with my FAA inspector. This was no big deal.
Mike Chaney
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of JMCBEAN
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fw: Installation of a Jabiru engine in a
Kitfox
If this aircraft had its airworthiness inspection done already then it would
have limitations that were given at the time of the inspection. Review
those limitations and it may advise on what needs to be done. For
example... if I was to change my engine or prop I need to send a letter to
the local FSDO advising of the change and the requested fly-off area.
Typically it requires a 5 hour fly-off. All log book entries would need to
be made.
Blue Skies!!
John & Debra McBean
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of David Michaud
Subject: Kitfox-List: Fw: Installation of a Jabiru engine in a Kitfox
----- Original Message -----
From: David Michaud
Subject: Installation of a Jabiru engine in a Kitfox
Hi List
I am an AP-IA, I amcurrently working on a kitfox III with US registration.I
have a couple of problems that I hope some of you can help me with. A
customer asked me to certify the installtion of a Jabiru engine and mount
(normaly a Rotax is installed) Both were already installed before I was
asked to look at the aircraft,It was done very well and with the
installation I have no problems. The question is what do I do know? I do not
work on experimental aircraft very often, this is a major alteration,so do
I need to write up an FAA form 337 or do I even need to inform the FAA of
the engine change? (I want to stay leagl) or is a DAR required for this
installation?
Also can anyone anser the question of who can legaly preform the annual
insp of an exprimental acft?
Thank you Dave
d.michaud(at)web.de
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall(at)comcast.net> |
Charlie, I have noticed the same thing, and it seems superfluous to me. As
the list admins, Darrel and I can do nothing about it.
If you have format suggestions, you can always send your comments to Matt
Dralle who has customized this system. He can be reached at
dralle(at)matronics.com.
If enough people make the same suggestions, I am sure he will act on it.
Don Pearsall
List Admin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve M" <ondeck355(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | A Century of Flight |
Me me me!!!
More likely at 10:35 Pacific, tho...
Steve Maher
Kitfox Model 2, Geo Metro engine
San Diego, CA
>From: "JMCBEAN" <JDMCBEAN(at)cableone.net>
>Reply-To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
>To: "Kitfox List"
>Subject: Kitfox-List: A Century of Flight
>Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:58:54 -0700
>
>
>thought. I cant be at Kitty Hawk physically but will most definitely be
>there spiritually.
>
>Blue Skies!!
>John & Debra McBean
>"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
>
>
Browse styles for all ages, from the latest looks to cozy weekend wear at
MSN Shopping. And check out the beauty products! http://shopping.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve M" <ondeck355(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: lift strut streamlining |
After you slice the edge and wrap them around the struts, how do you
re-fasten the edge?
I thought of slicing the streamlined tubing about a half inch ahead of the
trailing edge, then gluing in a piece of wood or aluminum on the inside to
fasten it back together after wrapping it around the strut. Would be tricky.
Anybody come up with a better method? I'm open to suggestions! :
)
Steve Maher
Kitfox Model 2, Geo Metro engine
San Diego, CA
>From: "Kitfox" <Kitfox(at)chrisbates.co.uk>
>Reply-To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: lift strut streamlining
>Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:37:32 -0000
>
>
>If it's of any help I purchased a set of moulded plastic lift strut
>fairings
>from Terry Raber at Streamline.
>All you do is slice one edge and fit tem on trimming as required, mine are
>filled at the ends with some expanded foam and sanded down.
>The original set arrived flat thanks to the carrier but Terry sent a
>replacement set in 48 hrs and I got to keep the originals which I chopped
>up
>and intend to use on my u/c legs.
>First class service and they fit nice and snug to the lift strut tubing.
>if anyone needs it his email is streamlineco(at)yahoo.com>
>
>Chris
>MKII - UK
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Gary Algate" <algate(at)attglobal.net>
>To:
>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Skystar's lift strut streamlining?
>
>
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > If you have the standard Model 4 struts you don't need anything else,
>the
> > kit comes with the struts and the aluminum cover that goes around the v
> > intersection of the two struts. It's just a matter of cutting the covers
>to
> > length and relieving a couple of areas to clear the Jury struts etc and
>then
> > you can glue them to the struts using hysol. In my case I didn't glue
>them
> > as I do a lot of float fling and I like the fact that I can just unclip
> > them to inspect the struts for corrosion during my annual inspection.
> >
> > When the trailing edge of the fairings snap together they will not move.
> >
> > I was referring to Steve's 3/4" struts when I suggested the mods.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Gary Algate
> > Lite2/582
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > Gary,,,, My struts are 1",, so why anything else needed. Bob U.
> >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > The fairings are made to clip around the actual strut so in your case
> > > they would be a pretty sloppy fit. You may be able to just wrap
> > > something like aluminum tape around the strut every foot to build the
> > > diameter back up to the required 1" so that the plastic clamps tight.
> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> >
>
>
Cell phone switch rules are taking effect find out more here.
http://special.msn.com/msnbc/consumeradvocate.armx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott McClintock <scott_mcclintock(at)dot.state.ak.us> |
| Subject: | Re: leading address |
Charlie,
Netscape 4.5 ?
Maybe it's time for an UPGRADE?
-Scott-
broschart wrote:
>
> why is it that the kitfox new system repeats the sender name and address
> with my netscape 4.5 this moves the start of the message data on to the
> next page making it necessary to scroll down to see any of the message
> data.
> with the old system i could see the beginning of the message data and if
> not of interest delete the posting, now i have the sender address
> repeated and need to scroll down a page to see any of the message data,
> an annoying inconvenience
>
> Have a good day - Charlie
>
> >
> >
> > Hello: i see that your subject was my aircraft number ... what original
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Chaney <mdps_mc(at)swoca.net> |
| Subject: | Re: lift strut streamlining |
I purchased some one inch pin striping at a local auto parts store and taped
the ends together.
Mike Chaney
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve M
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: lift strut streamlining
After you slice the edge and wrap them around the struts, how do you
re-fasten the edge?
I thought of slicing the streamlined tubing about a half inch ahead of the
trailing edge, then gluing in a piece of wood or aluminum on the inside to
fasten it back together after wrapping it around the strut. Would be tricky.
Anybody come up with a better method? I'm open to suggestions! :
)
Steve Maher
Kitfox Model 2, Geo Metro engine
San Diego, CA
>From: "Kitfox" <Kitfox(at)chrisbates.co.uk>
>Reply-To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: lift strut streamlining
>Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:37:32 -0000
>
>
>If it's of any help I purchased a set of moulded plastic lift strut
>fairings
>from Terry Raber at Streamline.
>All you do is slice one edge and fit tem on trimming as required, mine are
>filled at the ends with some expanded foam and sanded down.
>The original set arrived flat thanks to the carrier but Terry sent a
>replacement set in 48 hrs and I got to keep the originals which I chopped
>up
>and intend to use on my u/c legs.
>First class service and they fit nice and snug to the lift strut tubing.
>if anyone needs it his email is streamlineco(at)yahoo.com>
>
>Chris
>MKII - UK
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Gary Algate" <algate(at)attglobal.net>
>To:
>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Skystar's lift strut streamlining?
>
>
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > If you have the standard Model 4 struts you don't need anything else,
>the
> > kit comes with the struts and the aluminum cover that goes around the v
> > intersection of the two struts. It's just a matter of cutting the covers
>to
> > length and relieving a couple of areas to clear the Jury struts etc and
>then
> > you can glue them to the struts using hysol. In my case I didn't glue
>them
> > as I do a lot of float fling and I like the fact that I can just unclip
> > them to inspect the struts for corrosion during my annual inspection.
> >
> > When the trailing edge of the fairings snap together they will not move.
> >
> > I was referring to Steve's 3/4" struts when I suggested the mods.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Gary Algate
> > Lite2/582
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > Gary,,,, My struts are 1",, so why anything else needed. Bob U.
> >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > The fairings are made to clip around the actual strut so in your case
> > > they would be a pretty sloppy fit. You may be able to just wrap
> > > something like aluminum tape around the strut every foot to build the
> > > diameter back up to the required 1" so that the plastic clamps tight.
> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> >
>
>
Cell phone switch rules are taking effect find out more here.
http://special.msn.com/msnbc/consumeradvocate.armx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aerobatics(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: lift strut streamlining |
In a message dated 12/10/2003 10:54:17 AM Central Standard Time,
ondeck355(at)hotmail.com writes:
> After you slice the edge and wrap them around the struts, how do you
> re-fasten the edge?
>
> I thought of slicing the streamlined tubing about a half inch ahead of the
> trailing edge, then gluing in a piece of wood or aluminum on the inside to
> fasten it back together after wrapping it around the strut. Would be tricky.
>
> Anybody come up with a better method? I'm open to suggestions! :
> )
>
> Steve Maher
> Kitfox Model 2, Geo Metro engine
> San Diego, CA
OK, here is an idea I did....
Got some Blue foam used in insulation. Made the board the thickness of the
lift strut and about 3 inches wide. With a router, made a 1/2 circle to fit
lift strut. (I made it a bit smaller and finished sanded with sand paper on a
dowel) Then simply block sanded to an airfoil shape. Note, trailing edge
only.
The entire process took maybe 6 hours for all struts, including tail....
For the first test flight, I simply duct taped on and could not believe the
differance! In fact, I blew the landing the plane was so much cleaner.
I have gained 7 mph easy. Now my KF 2, with a new prop, IVO on my 582 BH,
indicates 80 mph at 5,600, 85 at 5,800.
This winter they will be removed, glassed and painted.
Well worth the effort.
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | PropLink Hydraulic Hub |
John King sez:
>There are a lot of variable pitch props on the market today for
>light aircraft engines like the Rotax, most of which are
>electrically driven. I am not one of those who feels comfortable
>depending on electrical motors forward of the firewall to stay in
>the air.
The failure of an electrically-driven prop pitch mechanism would not
prevent you from staying in the air, it just turns it into a
fixed-pitch prop. The pitch the prop goes to (or remains at) will
vary by the hub design and may not be optimal for climb or cruise,
but there's no reason you couldn't comfortably complete the flight
and effect repairs.
Mike G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lines, John" <JLines(at)phelpsdodge.com> |
Not being successful in listing my bird on the Sportflight "for sale" site,
I would refer you all (interested in purchasing a complete and proven craft)
to my listing on eBay under "Aircraft". It is item Number 2447208555. Pass
the word to anyone who would be interested in a great Kitfox (Which Kitfoxes
ARE) It can also be seen on sportflight under "completions". Feel free to
give me a call at the number listed below, or at 800-428-8413 JWL
John Wayne Lines
MCE Division
Training Specialist
Phelps Dodge Morenci Inc.
(928) 865-6762
jlines(at)phelpsdodge.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: lift strut streamlining |
Since the tape worked, I wonder if wraping them with Stits covering and
shrinking them on would work. You could put the glue on the tubing so it
wouldn't eat the foam,,,,,, or will it eat foam.?? Mine had the plastic
farings wrapped in stits, but had to remove them to upgrade the struts ....
and by the way found corrosion. so be sure to drain. Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Aerobatics(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: lift strut streamlining
>
> In a message dated 12/10/2003 10:54:17 AM Central Standard Time,
> ondeck355(at)hotmail.com writes:
>
> > After you slice the edge and wrap them around the struts, how do you
> > re-fasten the edge?
> >
> > I thought of slicing the streamlined tubing about a half inch ahead of
the
> > trailing edge, then gluing in a piece of wood or aluminum on the inside
to
> > fasten it back together after wrapping it around the strut. Would be
tricky.
> >
> > Anybody come up with a better method? I'm open to suggestions! :
> > )
> >
> > Steve Maher
> > Kitfox Model 2, Geo Metro engine
> > San Diego, CA
>
> OK, here is an idea I did....
>
> Got some Blue foam used in insulation. Made the board the thickness of the
> lift strut and about 3 inches wide. With a router, made a 1/2 circle to
fit
> lift strut. (I made it a bit smaller and finished sanded with sand paper
on a
> dowel) Then simply block sanded to an airfoil shape. Note, trailing
edge
> only.
>
> The entire process took maybe 6 hours for all struts, including tail....
>
> For the first test flight, I simply duct taped on and could not believe
the
> differance! In fact, I blew the landing the plane was so much cleaner.
>
> I have gained 7 mph easy. Now my KF 2, with a new prop, IVO on my 582
BH,
> indicates 80 mph at 5,600, 85 at 5,800.
>
> This winter they will be removed, glassed and painted.
>
> Well worth the effort.
>
> Dave
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Chaney <mdps_mc(at)swoca.net> |
| Subject: | Re: lift strut streamlining |
I used the tape and it is going on two years and it still looks fine.
Mike Chaney
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bob
Unternaehrer
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: lift strut streamlining
Since the tape worked, I wonder if wraping them with Stits covering and
shrinking them on would work. You could put the glue on the tubing so it
wouldn't eat the foam,,,,,, or will it eat foam.?? Mine had the plastic
farings wrapped in stits, but had to remove them to upgrade the struts ....
and by the way found corrosion. so be sure to drain. Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Aerobatics(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: lift strut streamlining
>
> In a message dated 12/10/2003 10:54:17 AM Central Standard Time,
> ondeck355(at)hotmail.com writes:
>
> > After you slice the edge and wrap them around the struts, how do you
> > re-fasten the edge?
> >
> > I thought of slicing the streamlined tubing about a half inch ahead of
the
> > trailing edge, then gluing in a piece of wood or aluminum on the inside
to
> > fasten it back together after wrapping it around the strut. Would be
tricky.
> >
> > Anybody come up with a better method? I'm open to suggestions! :
> > )
> >
> > Steve Maher
> > Kitfox Model 2, Geo Metro engine
> > San Diego, CA
>
> OK, here is an idea I did....
>
> Got some Blue foam used in insulation. Made the board the thickness of the
> lift strut and about 3 inches wide. With a router, made a 1/2 circle to
fit
> lift strut. (I made it a bit smaller and finished sanded with sand paper
on a
> dowel) Then simply block sanded to an airfoil shape. Note, trailing
edge
> only.
>
> The entire process took maybe 6 hours for all struts, including tail....
>
> For the first test flight, I simply duct taped on and could not believe
the
> differance! In fact, I blew the landing the plane was so much cleaner.
>
> I have gained 7 mph easy. Now my KF 2, with a new prop, IVO on my 582
BH,
> indicates 80 mph at 5,600, 85 at 5,800.
>
> This winter they will be removed, glassed and painted.
>
> Well worth the effort.
>
> Dave
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve M" <ondeck355(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | SoCal pilots: Want to go flying on Wed. Dec. 17? |
Want to go flying Wed, Dec. 17, for the 100th anniversary of the Wright
brothers first manned powered flight? Kitfoxes, ultralights, experimentals,
GA planes, all welcome.
I'm taking the day off just for the occasion. Propose lifting off from
Nichols field (Otay) near Otay Lake in San Diego, at 10:35 AM Pacific time
and going... someplace. Perhaps overfly the fire-ravaged Ultralight Park at
Barona. And Fla-bob airport in Riverside county has an open house that day,
though that would be a long flight for a Part-103 UL. Hmmm, are ULs allowed
at Fla-bob?
Alternative plan would be to head west from Otay, skirt around Brown Field's
Class-D airspace, and fly up and down the coast briefly, then return to
Otay.
Yet another alternative might be to rendezvous at either Perris or
Hemet/Ryan airports, both of which house ultralights and GA aircraft alike,
and then take off from there. Hell, any excuse to go flying is OK in my
book.
Any takers?
Steve Maher
Kitfox Model 2, Geo Metro engine
Former Minimax UL owner
San Diego, CA
Take advantage of our best MSN Dial-up offer of the year six months
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Unsubscribing from kitfox list |
| From: | "Paul A. Franz, P.E." <paul(at)eucleides.com> |
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 12:56, John Mckiernan wrote:
>
> I have been unsuccessful in unsubscribing from the kitfox list. Please help
to remove my email address from this list.
>
> Thanks
>
> John McKiernan
Just click the link below, <http://www.matronics.com/subscription> that
is in every post, and follow the instructions.
Why are you finding that difficult?
>
--
PAF Consulting Engineers | 427 - 140th Ave NE
(425)641-8202 voice | Bellevue, WA 98005
(425)641-1773 fax |
GnuPG Public Key - <http://eucleides.com/pgpkey.asc>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor(at)online.no> |
| Subject: | Re: PropLink Hydraulic Hub |
> "John E. King" wrote:
> To the List:
>
> As most of you know I purchased a PropLink in-flight adjustable
> propeller for my Series 6 Kitfox powered by a Rotax 912S. At that time
> I chose to use the PowerFin 72" three bladed propeller.
Hi John,
Very good information about your project, -and most interesting.
About your experience with PowerFin, just come to think about Lowell's
posting a few days ago, about our round "Kitfox" cowl using a "turbine"
propeller. Excuse me for the expression, but the Powerfin is a "kind" of
lookalike and is very efficient.
I'll think that this new Hydraulic hub with a Warp prop., is a winner
combination and will be hard to match for PowerFin (at least when used
on a Kitfox), but the time will show.
Thanks
Torgeir.
________________________________________________________________________________
Would anybody have a smooth streemline cowl off a Mod 5, 6 or 7 that might be damaged
or otherwise available cheap to use as a plug to make my own cowl for a
Mod IV.
Blue Skies
Bob Unternaehrer
shilocom@c-magic.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John E. King " <kingjohn(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PropLink Hydraulic Hub |
Torgeir,
There was another benefit of the PropLink hubs (all hub modes) that I
failed to mention before. Before I installed the PropLink hub I
initially installed the PowerFin ground adjustable propeller. Due to
the width of the blades near the root end, the blades only cleared the
Series 6 cowling by 1/4 of an inch when adjusted for the optimum pitch
position. I am sure that that affects the efficiency if the blades.
After installing the PropLink hub the same blades cleared the cowling by
1 1/2 inches.
I am very anxious to see the new PowerFin blade design when it comes out
next summer. One of the reasons for the delay is that they just
invested a lot of money in a state-of-the-art machine that weaves the
composite fibers to their desires. They will now be able to do
everything in house. The business is owned by a Father-Son team.
Torgeir Mortensen wrote:
>
>
>
>>"John E. King" wrote:
>>To the List:
>>
>>As most of you know I purchased a PropLink in-flight adjustable
>>propeller for my Series 6 Kitfox powered by a Rotax 912S. At that time
>>I chose to use the PowerFin 72" three bladed propeller.
>>
>>
>
>
>Hi John,
>
>Very good information about your project, -and most interesting.
>
>About your experience with PowerFin, just come to think about Lowell's
>posting a few days ago, about our round "Kitfox" cowl using a "turbine"
>propeller. Excuse me for the expression, but the Powerfin is a "kind" of
>lookalike and is very efficient.
>
>I'll think that this new Hydraulic hub with a Warp prop., is a winner
>combination and will be hard to match for PowerFin (at least when used
>on a Kitfox), but the time will show.
>
>Thanks
>
>
>Torgeir.
>
>
>
>
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "david yeamans" <dafox(at)ckt.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A Century of Flight |
Hello John,
of airplanes in the sky at that time. Orville and Wilbur looking
down should be glorified.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Harrington
To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: A Century of Flight
Hi John,
Many of the members of the Oregon Antique & Classic Airplane Club plan a group
flight out pf the Cottage Grove/Creswell area at that time. I'll try to join
in, weather permitting.
Bruce
> thought. I cant be at Kitty Hawk physically but will most definitely be
> there spiritually.
>
> Blue Skies!!
> John & Debra McBean
> "The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
________________________________________________________________________________
Will a Mod. 5/6/7 cowl fit a Mod. IV?
If so is it any longer?
Appreciate any info on this.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michel <michel(at)online.no> |
"Ron Carroll" wrote:
>My concern is because we will be on a cruise ship next May, stopping in Oslo
& Copenhagen. I'd hope to miss any such weather.
Don't worry, Ron, May is usually a very nice month in Oslo and Copenhagen.
Note that May 17th is the Norwegian national day, something you may want to
see.
The weather pattern in north Europe is simple: If it rains, there is 70%
chances that it will be sun the day after. And vice-versa. This is because we
have a succession of lows passing over us and it takes about 24 hours to go
from a low to the next high ridge. In summer, the Acores high extends more
north and presses the lows more north. In winter, the polar high extends and
push the lows more south. In average, three times a year, a stable high builds
up over Scandinavia and the British islands: In September, January and June.
That's when the jet-streams are slowing down. Nice weather then, but in
January, very cold. This is an average and may vary a lot from year to year.
But Oslo is protected from the westerly lows by the mountains and we have a
drier climate that, e.g. Belgium, where I was born.
Cheers,
Michel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Blackberry" <tblackballs(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: fuselage corrosion proofing |
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Blackberry
Subject: Fw: fuselage corrosion proofing
Could fellow builders share with me their thoughts and tips on applying corrosion
proofing type oils to the inside tubes of the Kitfox fuselage.
Do you think it is necessary as there is nothing mentioned about it in the assembly
manual?
Some say to only do the lower longerons.Iam worried about weakening the fuselage
at the hole drilled to apply the oil.
Where is the best place to drill these holes and maintain integrity of original
design?
Can the oil migrate to other tubes?
Hoping someone can help with some of these questions.
Regards Tony Blackberry MK 1V 1200
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | broschart <cfbflyer(at)localnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: leading address |
doesn't happen with memos from other address
Have a good day - Charlie
Scott McClintock wrote:
>
>
> Charlie,
> Netscape 4.5 ?
> Maybe it's time for an UPGRADE?
> -Scott-
>
> broschart wrote:
>
> >
> > why is it that the kitfox new system repeats the sender name and address
> > with my netscape 4.5 this moves the start of the message data on to the
> > next page making it necessary to scroll down to see any of the message
> > data.
> > with the old system i could see the beginning of the message data and if
> > not of interest delete the posting, now i have the sender address
> > repeated and need to scroll down a page to see any of the message data,
> > an annoying inconvenience
> >
> > Have a good day - Charlie
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello: i see that your subject was my aircraft number ... what original
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kurt A. Schumacher" <Kurt.Schumacher(at)schumi.ch> |
This is not related to your e-mail software at all. This is a header line added
for a while now by the list server at Matronics.
Left a message to Matt - thanks for serving this large number of aviation related
communities btw. - asking to move this to the
bottom of the message, just above the standard footer.
-Kurt.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of broschart
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: leading address
doesn't happen with memos from other address
Have a good day - Charlie
Scott McClintock wrote:
>
> -->
>
> Charlie,
> Netscape 4.5 ?
> Maybe it's time for an UPGRADE?
> -Scott-
>
> broschart wrote:
>
> >
> > why is it that the kitfox new system repeats the sender name and
> > address with my netscape 4.5 this moves the start of the message
> > data on to the next page making it necessary to scroll down to see
> > any of the message data. with the old system i could see the
> > beginning of the message data and if not of interest delete the
> > posting, now i have the sender address repeated and need to scroll
> > down a page to see any of the message data, an annoying
> > inconvenience
> >
> > Have a good day - Charlie
> >
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > > Hello: i see that your subject was my aircraft number ... what
> > > original
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron" <rliebmann(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: fuselage corrosion proofing |
Hey Tony,
In the Sportplane Builder (EAA) author/builder/guru Tony Bingelis says to
drill 1/8th inch holes at the needed places, (ends of tubing runs) and
inject hot linseed oil and rotate the tubes to coat the entire inside wall.
This would require you to rotate the whole fuselage to get good coverage.
You can feel the tubing for warmth to know it the hot oil is getting where
you want it to be.
Allow all oil to drain out after coating. Holes are plugged up with a
self-tapping screw dipped in linseed oil first or by using a dipped first
drive rivet. There will be no loss of strength in the tubing.
I suggest that all aircraft builders get the set of Tony Bingelis's books
fron EAA. They are: Sportplane Builder, Firewall Forward, Sportplane
Construction and Tony Bingelis on Engines.........
Ron N55KF
>
>
> Could fellow builders share with me their thoughts and tips on applying
corrosion proofing type oils to the inside tubes of the Kitfox fuselage.
> Do you think it is necessary as there is nothing mentioned about it in the
assembly manual?
> Some say to only do the lower longerons.Iam worried about weakening the
fuselage at the hole drilled to apply the oil.
> Where is the best place to drill these holes and maintain integrity of
original design?
> Can the oil migrate to other tubes?
> Hoping someone can help with some of these questions.
> Regards Tony Blackberry MK 1V 1200
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John E. King " <kingjohn(at)erols.com> |
Relative to the Rotax 912, the Model IV engine mount places the engine several
inches closer to the firewall than it does in the Series 5/6/7 models. Therefore
the cowls on the Model IV's must be shorter.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
DC91840(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Will a Mod. 5/6/7 cowl fit a Mod. IV?
>If so is it any longer?
>Appreciate any info on this.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kitfox" <Kitfox(at)chrisbates.co.uk> |
Had my first SPAM email on the address I use specifically for this
newsgroup.
Been using the email address for two years without any spam problems until
we switched from sportflight to matronics.
I don't respond to anything else with this address and haven't responded to
any anti-spam requests on the newsgroup.
I run the security on my email connection very tightly.
Be interesting to know if anyone else has experienced this.
Chris
MKII UK
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fw: fuselage corrosion proofing |
I want to do the same thing, except I'm going to have the fuselage and
struts cut open for other modifications and wonder what to use... I've heard
linseed oil??? Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Blackberry" <tblackballs(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Fw: fuselage corrosion proofing
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tony Blackberry
> To: kitfoxlist(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Fw: fuselage corrosion proofing
>
>
> Could fellow builders share with me their thoughts and tips on applying
corrosion proofing type oils to the inside tubes of the Kitfox fuselage.
> Do you think it is necessary as there is nothing mentioned about it in the
assembly manual?
> Some say to only do the lower longerons.Iam worried about weakening the
fuselage at the hole drilled to apply the oil.
> Where is the best place to drill these holes and maintain integrity of
original design?
> Can the oil migrate to other tubes?
> Hoping someone can help with some of these questions.
> Regards Tony Blackberry MK 1V 1200
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RiteAngle3(at)aol.com |
Hi Chris,
Don't think it comes from Matt's list!
I've been on the Matronics lists on and off for several years and have had
absolutely no spam on or from his list.
I am on other "individual" lists and the spammers are always in them, like a
plague!
However I do get spam on an e-mail address that only 3 people have as it was
setup for confidential stuff and know they don't send it, especially the
garbage porno stuff!
Elbie
EM aviation
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hal Harris" <maryhal(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Kifox Series 5 For sale |
Attn List:
I have a Kitfox Series 5 Outback for sale..
Firewall aft, almost ready for covering.
email me for details or call 208 549 0337 (Weiser Idaho)
maryhal(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
I'm just looking for the front end so I can attach it to a rear section of a
"round cowl" bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John E. King " <kingjohn(at)erols.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cowling
>
> Relative to the Rotax 912, the Model IV engine mount places the engine
several inches closer to the firewall than it does in the Series 5/6/7
models. Therefore the cowls on the Model IV's must be shorter.
>
> --
> John King
> Warrenton, VA
>
>
> DC91840(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Will a Mod. 5/6/7 cowl fit a Mod. IV?
> >If so is it any longer?
> >Appreciate any info on this.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John E. King " <kingjohn(at)erols.com> |
Bob,
My model IV round cowl was a four piece cowl (front and rear/top and
bottom). My Series 6 cowl is a two piece (top and bottom only). Do not
archive.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
Bob Unternaehrer wrote:
>
>I'm just looking for the front end so I can attach it to a rear section of a
>"round cowl" bob U.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John E. King " <kingjohn(at)erols.com>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cowling
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Relative to the Rotax 912, the Model IV engine mount places the engine
>>
>>
>several inches closer to the firewall than it does in the Series 5/6/7
>models. Therefore the cowls on the Model IV's must be shorter.
>
>
>>--
>>John King
>>Warrenton, VA
>>
>>
>>DC91840(at)aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Will a Mod. 5/6/7 cowl fit a Mod. IV?
>>>If so is it any longer?
>>>Appreciate any info on this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott McClintock <scott_mcclintock(at)dot.state.ak.us> |
Oh Yes,
My SPAM load has increased greatly. I get quite a few "offers" from the
Nigerians to transfer their millions into my account now.
It sure would be nice if that would stop.
-Scott-
Kitfox wrote:
>
> Had my first SPAM email on the address I use specifically for this
> newsgroup.
> Been using the email address for two years without any spam problems until
> we switched from sportflight to matronics.
> I don't respond to anything else with this address and haven't responded to
> any anti-spam requests on the newsgroup.
> I run the security on my email connection very tightly.
> Be interesting to know if anyone else has experienced this.
> Chris
> MKII UK
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron" <rliebmann(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: fuselage corrosion proofing |
Hey Tony,
In the Sportplane Builder (EAA) author/builder/guru Tony Bingelis says to
drill 1/8th inch holes at the needed places, (ends of tubing runs) and
inject hot linseed oil and rotate the tubes to coat the entire inside wall.
This would require you to rotate the whole fuselage to get good coverage.
You can feel the tubing for warmth to know it the hot oil is getting where
you want it to be.
Allow all oil to drain out after coating. Holes are plugged up with a
self-tapping screw dipped in linseed oil first or by using a dipped first
drive rivet. There will be no loss of strength in the tubing.
I suggest that all aircraft builders get the set of Tony Bingelis's books
fron EAA. They are: Sportplane Builder, Firewall Forward, Sportplane
Construction and Tony Bingelis on Engines.........
Ron N55KF
Could fellow builders share with me their thoughts and tips on applying
corrosion proofing type oils to the inside tubes of the Kitfox fuselage.
Do you think it is necessary as there is nothing mentioned about it in the
assembly manual?
Some say to only do the lower longerons.Iam worried about weakening the
fuselage at the hole drilled to apply the oil.
Where is the best place to drill these holes and maintain integrity of
original design?
Can the oil migrate to other tubes?
Hoping someone can help with some of these questions.
Regards Tony Blackberry MK 1V 1200
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Todd" <Ctodd2(at)wi.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: fuselage corrosion proofing |
Hey ron, how is the new plane construction going. Putting a new 912 and
anphib
floats in mine this winter. Drop me a e-mail off line when you get time.
Chuck Todd N57CT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron" <rliebmann(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Fw: Kitfox-List: Fw: fuselage corrosion proofing
>
>
> Hey Tony,
>
> In the Sportplane Builder (EAA) author/builder/guru Tony Bingelis says
to
> drill 1/8th inch holes at the needed places, (ends of tubing runs) and
> inject hot linseed oil and rotate the tubes to coat the entire inside
wall.
> This would require you to rotate the whole fuselage to get good coverage.
> You can feel the tubing for warmth to know it the hot oil is getting
where
> you want it to be.
> Allow all oil to drain out after coating. Holes are plugged up with a
> self-tapping screw dipped in linseed oil first or by using a dipped first
> drive rivet. There will be no loss of strength in the tubing.
>
> I suggest that all aircraft builders get the set of Tony Bingelis's
books
> fron EAA. They are: Sportplane Builder, Firewall Forward, Sportplane
> Construction and Tony Bingelis on Engines.........
>
> Ron N55KF
>
>
> Could fellow builders share with me their thoughts and tips on applying
> corrosion proofing type oils to the inside tubes of the Kitfox fuselage.
> Do you think it is necessary as there is nothing mentioned about it in
the
> assembly manual?
> Some say to only do the lower longerons.Iam worried about weakening the
> fuselage at the hole drilled to apply the oil.
> Where is the best place to drill these holes and maintain integrity of
> original design?
> Can the oil migrate to other tubes?
> Hoping someone can help with some of these questions.
> Regards Tony Blackberry MK 1V 1200
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Cargo Pod Wanted |
| From: | "Allan Arthur" <alnan(at)earthlink.net> |
Former Lister, Tim Glenn is looking for a Cargo Pod, can anyone help?
Received this message from Tim:
>>Hope all is well with you and your family. Hey I was wondering if you
are still plugged into the Kitfox e-mail list. If you are, could you
inquire if anyone might have a Kitfox cargo pod they would be willing to
sell or perhaps even rent. I'm thinking of making the trek to OSH next
summer and I need more cargo space. As you know my early model 5 has a very
small area behind the seat.
>>Tim
Thanks,
Allan Arthur
N40AA Series 5 Taildragger (107 hours)
912 ULS, Warp Drive 3 blade prop
Martinez, CA (Byron Airport, Hanger C8)
________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for the cowling info.
Don C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Trey Moran" <ffmoran(at)centurytel.net> |
I finally looked at all the great pictures of plane on skis. So what is a source
for the tire through skis pictured?
Trey Moran
----- Original Message -----
From: Kurt A. Schumacher
To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 12:10 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Skis
Here is a good Kitfox ski view http://www.gletscherflug.ch/albums/album05/abu.jpg (Kitfox IV Speedster F-PSDX - Alain Gabus,
Switzerland)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cnichols" <cnichols(at)scrtc.com> |
| Subject: | In-flight adjustable props |
Does anyone in the group have any experience with the cockpit adjustable prop sold
by NSI for use with their EA81 Subaru conversion? What about the Ivo in-flight
adjustable prop?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RiteAngle3(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: In-flight adjustable props |
You might go to the Matronics Europa list and post the question re the Ivo
props.
Elbie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SOURDOSTAN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Cleaning Poly-Tone |
Thought I'd pass along the name of a great product to clean Poly-Tone
painted and powder-coated surfaces. During the building process I found numerous
reasons to clean off masking tape residue and other accidental goofs from my
Poly-Tone surfaces, and found by mistake that many substances that I had been
using, such as rubbing alcohol, Goo Gone, Goof Off, etc, affected the surface.
So, what I finally found that did a REALLY good job, and now use as part of my
maintenance cleaning, is "un-do" adhesive remover. It can be purchased in
many Wal-Marts, Bed Bath and Beyond and scrap booking stores. It is under $10.00
for a 4 fl. oz. bottle. It's made to remove stickers from all surfaces and
photos from those plastic photo album pages that stick to the pictures. They
have a website at www.un-do.com or call 1-888-buy undo.
Stan Specht
N16KC "Columbine"
Kitfox Model IV Speedster 912ul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michel <michel(at)online.no> |
| Subject: | Fw: fuselage corrosion proofing |
>===== Original Message From "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilocom@c-magic.com>
> ... I've heard linseed oil??? Bob U.
Yes Bob, linseed oil is a cheap but beautiful natural product that has been
used for centuries by seafarers. One thing, though: if after working with it,
you leave oil-soaked rags in a corner of your hangar, you probably won't find
them again the day after. Nor your hangar or your plane, for the matter.
Linseed oil drying on rags will produce enough heat to start burning.
Something to do with the large exposure to air of a rag, I was told. Simply
soak the rags with water before disposing of them.
Cheers,
Michel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dmorisse" <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Re: In-flight adjustable props |
> Does anyone in the group have any experience with the cockpit adjustable
prop sold by NSI for use with their EA81 Subaru conversion? What about the
Ivo in-flight adjustable prop?
The NSI prop was built for and is a perfect match for the NSI EA81. Never
had a problem with mine and worth every penny. I believe Lance is working
on a new version using his own blades rather than the Warp units and says
the blades are more efficient with better thrust. I have no idea when they
would be available.
Darrel
S5/NSI/CAP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dave" <dave(at)ablerig.com> |
| Subject: | In-flight adjustable props IVO medium user |
I have an IVO on a Jabiru. Would never go back to a fixed pitch.
Dave
34AB
-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Algate" <algate(at)attglobal.net> |
| Subject: | In-flight adjustable props |
I have the IVO Medium 2 blade in-flight adjustable on my 582. I love it.
There is also a Bush Caddy here with the NSI and IVO in flight adjustable 3
blade Ultralight prop which also works great.
Gary Algate
Lite2/582
> Does anyone in the group have any experience with the cockpit
> adjustable
prop sold by NSI for use with their EA81 Subaru conversion? What about the
Ivo in-flight adjustable prop?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)inreach.com> |
| Subject: | Re: In-flight adjustable props |
Elbie, I wonder if the experience with Europa will translate to Kitfox.
there has been some discussion on the frontal area of the round cowl Kitfox
and the fact that the distance of the prop from the front of the cowl can
effect prop performance. There is a lot of experience with these prop hubs
with pilots right here on the list. I see no reason to muddy the waters
here.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: <RiteAngle3(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: In-flight adjustable props
>
> You might go to the Matronics Europa list and post the question re the Ivo
> props.
> Elbie
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: In-flight adjustable props |
I talked to Lance last year about his new prop and
learned while doing so that he designs the prop to
stand up to 700% RPM. The NSI props are not light
weight, but there is a reason for that.
Don't know about the IVO, I but do know that the NSI
prop is strong.
Kurt S.
--- cnichols wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone in the group have any experience with
> the cockpit adjustable prop sold by NSI for use with
> their EA81 Subaru conversion? What about the Ivo
> in-flight adjustable prop?
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve M" <ondeck355(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion |
I've often wondered if it would be possible to use an automotive-type
external luggage carrier on a Kitfox, mounted under the belly just behind
the gear legs. Specifically, one of the long black plastic ones from the
Yakima or Thule outfits. You probably know the one I mean: Long and narrow,
tapered at one end, sort of squared off on the other end.
They are usually mounted on top of cars, tapered end to the front and curved
surface on top. I was thinking of turning it both upside-down and backwards,
so the blunt end was forward and the flat side nestled against the bottom of
the plane. Have to fabricate some sort of mounts to attach it to the bear
and float mounts. Probably have to remove it from the plane to open it,
since it's upside-down, unless you want your stuff to spill all over the
ramp into those oil stains left by somebody's DC-3.
Probably have to go behind the gear legs so that a hard landing won't cause
the bungee bars to hit it. And blunt end forward because I have a hunch
that's a lower-drag configuration than tapered end forward, just like a wing
has its rounded edge forward and tapered-to-a-knife-edge back.
Anyone ever tried this?
Steve Maher
Kitfox Model 2, what's a "luggage compartment"?
San Diego, CA
>From: "Allan Arthur" <alnan(at)earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Kitfox-List: Cargo Pod Wanted
>Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:23:43 -0800
>
>
>Former Lister, Tim Glenn is looking for a Cargo Pod, can anyone help?
>
>Received this message from Tim:
> >>Hope all is well with you and your family. Hey I was wondering if you
>are still plugged into the Kitfox e-mail list. If you are, could you
>inquire if anyone might have a Kitfox cargo pod they would be willing to
>sell or perhaps even rent. I'm thinking of making the trek to OSH next
>summer and I need more cargo space. As you know my early model 5 has a
>very
>small area behind the seat.
> >>Tim
>
>Thanks,
>Allan Arthur
>N40AA Series 5 Taildragger (107 hours)
>912 ULS, Warp Drive 3 blade prop
>Martinez, CA (Byron Airport, Hanger C8)
>
>
Cell phone switch rules are taking effect find out more here.
http://special.msn.com/msnbc/consumeradvocate.armx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve M" <ondeck355(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | "Learning to fly again" |
Not directly Kitfox-related, but cool anyway.
http://www.townhall.com
Learning to fly again
by Emmett Tyrrell
November 27, 2003
KITTY HAWK, N.C. -- Almost 100 years after the Wright brothers' first
flight, there is drama down here at the memorial where the Ohio bicycle
entrepreneurs made history.
For five days in the middle of December, the Wright Brothers National
Memorial will be celebrating the brothers' historic flight. The ceremonies
begin on Saturday, Dec. 13. By Dec. 15, some of the most famous names in
aviation will be arriving, among them Chuck Yeager, the fabled test pilot
who along with other achievements was the first to fly faster than the speed
of sound, and Neil Armstrong, commander of Apollo 11, who on July 20, 1969,
became the first human to walk on the moon.
Then, on Dec. 17, this windswept field will be crowded with dignitaries and
ordinary Americans to commemorate the centennial of the "12 seconds that
changed the world." But there is another drama taking place right now.
Before I mention today's drama, consider Orville and Wilbur Wright's
exploits. Back in Dayton, they were successful businessmen. Wilbur, the
older brother, was bookish and intense. Orville was more outgoing and
glad-handing. Both disturbed the town's settled folk with talk of putting
one of their contraptions into the air and actually flying from one point to
another.
There were many in 19th century Dayton who thought such talk was weird --
some thought it blasphemous. Yet the brothers kept tinkering in their shop
and disappearing to North Carolina's Outer Banks, where they would take
advantage of the ceaseless winds to develop wings, propellers and an engine.
The last two contrivances would complete their invention of what we today
call the airplane. The brothers' propeller and engine were uniquely their
own creations, manifestations of scientific and engineering skills that set
them apart.
By 1903, and after many depressing setbacks, they thought they had a crack
at making the first manned heavier-than-air flight. Dressed in coats and
ties on a chilly week in December, they brought their heavier-than-air
contraption to this field. They attached their 12 horsepower, 180-pound
engine to a 40-foot, 605-pound "Flyer" that looked like what we today might
call a biplane. Winning a coin toss over brother Orville, Wilbur on Dec. 14
made the first attempt to ride the Flyer into the sky. As it left its
launching rail, Wilbur miscalculated his steering device and, after a brief
ascent, hit the sand.
After repairs, the brothers were ready again on Dec. 17. This time, it was
Orville's turn. At 10:35 in the morning, he accelerated the Flyer along the
rail, with his brother running alongside steadying the wings. This time, the
bird took off, and man's first flight lasted 12 seconds and covered 120
feet. Taking turns, Wilbur and Orville made three more flights that day,
ending with Wilbur's record-setting 59 seconds aloft, covering 852 feet.
It all sounds quite easy, but everything they did that day and in all the
days leading up to the historic flight was arduous and chancy. After their
last flight, a gust of wind caught the parked machine, tipped it over and
smashed it beyond repair. The brothers returned to Dayton.
Throughout the next two years, they refined their airplane, and by 1905 they
could fly in circles for nearly 40 minutes. When they offered their
contraption to the United States Army, they were snubbed. Washington doubted
their claims. For the next three years, they gave up flying, as government
aviators in Washington and Paris tried to duplicate their achievement. All
failed badly (by 1906, none had remained above ground for more than a few
seconds), and doubts about the Wright brothers' claims spread.
Not until 1908 did they sign agreements with our government and the French
to assist those governments' faltering flying programs. Then, joining with
the Army and the French, the Wrights proved their superiority. Soon Wilbur,
in a more advanced plane, could remain aloft for 2 hours, reaching an
altitude of 360 feet. No one in the Army or in France had matched them. Now
they had proved their genius.
Here in Kitty Hawk, their genius has been proved again. On Nov. 20, modern
Americans tried to fly a replica of the Wright brothers' plane in
preparation for the centennial on Dec. 17. It flew 119 feet, one foot short
of the brothers' first flight, and crashed badly. No one was hurt, but the
plane is a mess. Now with great drama, a crew of 21st century technicians is
trying to get the plane back together for the take-off at 10:35, 100 years
after the first flight. They hope they can repair their modern-day airplane
so it can be flown on the day of the great celebration.
Maybe they can, but they have another problem. What if our modern engineers
and aviators fail to fly it as far as Orville flew his? Yeager broke the
sound barrier. Armstrong walked on the moon. But here at Kitty Hawk, it is
too early to say that we moderns can match those bicycle entrepreneurs from
Dayton, Ohio.
Cell phone switch rules are taking effect find out more here.
http://special.msn.com/msnbc/consumeradvocate.armx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gene m. calkins" <calkinsgm(at)charter.net> |
List I have tracked down the guy that makes the skis that the wheel protrudes
thru the ski. I posted the pictures on sportflight.com in add-ons.. His name
is Greg Klemp PH. 1-920-293-8089 he is located at Neshkoro Wisconsin USA
that is about 30mi.west of the OSH airport. He is the guy that builds the engine
mounts, control sticks and other parts for the Sonex airplane. He is at that
phone 5 days a week. Gene N99GC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dmorisse" <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion |
> I've often wondered if it would be possible to use an automotive-type
> external luggage carrier on a Kitfox, mounted under the belly just behind
> the gear legs. Specifically, one of the long black plastic ones from the
> Yakima or Thule outfits. You probably know the one I mean: Long and
narrow,
> tapered at one end, sort of squared off on the other end.
>
> They are usually mounted on top of cars, tapered end to the front and
curved
> surface on top. I was thinking of turning it both upside-down and
backwards,
> so the blunt end was forward and the flat side nestled against the bottom
of
> the plane. Have to fabricate some sort of mounts to attach it to the bear
> and float mounts. Probably have to remove it from the plane to open it,
> since it's upside-down, unless you want your stuff to spill all over the
> ramp into those oil stains left by somebody's DC-3.
>
> Probably have to go behind the gear legs so that a hard landing won't
cause
> the bungee bars to hit it. And blunt end forward because I have a hunch
> that's a lower-drag configuration than tapered end forward, just like a
wing
> has its rounded edge forward and tapered-to-a-knife-edge back.
>
> Anyone ever tried this?
>
> Steve Maher
> Kitfox Model 2, what's a "luggage compartment"?
> San Diego, CA
I've considered the same thing Steve and always wondered why it's
aerodynamically backward. Then again, sail boats seem to be the same way.
Maybe water dynamics are different.
Go for it and let us know how it works.
Darrel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott McClintock <scott_mcclintock(at)dot.state.ak.us> |
| Subject: | Re: In-flight adjustable props |
Yes, I have the NSI electrically adjustable prop setup on my Series 5.
What can I tell you about it?
-Scott McClintock, PLS-
Nome, Alaska
cnichols wrote:
>
> Does anyone in the group have any experience with the cockpit adjustable prop
sold by NSI for use with their EA81 Subaru conversion? What about the Ivo in-flight
adjustable prop?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Verheughe <michel(at)online.no> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion |
dmorisse wrote:
> I've considered the same thing Steve and always wondered why it's
> aerodynamically backward. Then again, sail boats seem to be the same way.
> Maybe water dynamics are different.
Allow me to respectfully disagree with you, Darrel.
A wing has to have a blunt leading edge because if it hadn't, it would work
fine for a very small change in AoA but then stall very quick once the angle is
wrong.
A sailboat has often quite symmetrical waterlines or buttock lines, if you look
at the longitudinal sections. True, they often have a square transom, but that
is over the waterline, thus not interfering with the flow of the water. True
also, some modern racing sailboats have rather horizontal buttock lines, aft of
midship. But that is because the want to win races on the downwind leg, using
big spinnakers and they can only exceed their "hump" speed (1.34 times the
square root of the LWL, in feet) by "climbing" their bow wave. And to do that,
they need lift, as do speed boats and seaplanes.
On the other hand, vessels on the low range of the speed/length ratio, like
tankers, often have a bulb bow, pretty similar to a the blunt leading edge of a
wing.
In fact, the ideal submarine would be an egg, blunt end first, and a tail 9
times as long as the egg's length. I am sure you can figure out what, in
nature, has copied these features; the little guys who transmit their genes if
they come first, the natural selection! :-)
Regarding these "car cargo pods," that are very popular in Norway, because we
use them for our skis - I guess their sleek forward end and blunt after end is
only a matter of design, matching the look of the car itself. Yes, much is done
to streamline the bonnet of a car, but nothing, really, to reduce the
tremendous drag of air it pulls behind. And it may be just as well; a good
aerodynamic car with a long tail would be difficult to park! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JMCBEAN" <JDMCBEAN(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | In-flight adjustable props |
Flown behind the Ivo and have been running it on the 912 ULS for the last 72
hours. I have been very pleased with the performance.
Blue Skies!!
John & Debra McBean
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of cnichols
Subject: Kitfox-List: In-flight adjustable props
Does anyone in the group have any experience with the cockpit adjustable
prop sold by NSI for use with their EA81 Subaru conversion? What about the
Ivo in-flight adjustable prop?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KFN102LG(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion |
One thing to keep in mind is that most of these pods have two flimsily
latches and hinges to hold the pod cover in place and a reinforced bottom. Mounting
the unit upside down means the load will be suspended from the latches and
hinges and turbulence could cause your Fox to resemble a C47 during D-day not to
mention what aerodynamic differences you could have with the unit partially
open. Approach this modification carefully.
Larry Gagnon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Graichen" <n10pg(at)neo.rr.com> |
| Subject: | In-flight adjustable props |
I have 800 trouble-free hours on my NSI CAP
Peter Graichen
http://home.neo.rr.com/n10pg/kitfox.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of cnichols
Subject: Kitfox-List: In-flight adjustable props
Does anyone in the group have any experience with the cockpit adjustable
prop sold by NSI for use with their EA81 Subaru conversion? What about the
Ivo in-flight adjustable prop?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)inreach.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion |
Steve,
Interesting idea. A local builder used a plaster pan - the kind plasterers
use to mix the stuff on his airplane. It looked pretty good.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve M" <ondeck355(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion
>
> I've often wondered if it would be possible to use an automotive-type
> external luggage carrier on a Kitfox, mounted under the belly just behind
> the gear legs. Specifically, one of the long black plastic ones from the
> Yakima or Thule outfits. You probably know the one I mean: Long and
narrow,
> tapered at one end, sort of squared off on the other end.
>
> They are usually mounted on top of cars, tapered end to the front and
curved
> surface on top. I was thinking of turning it both upside-down and
backwards,
> so the blunt end was forward and the flat side nestled against the bottom
of
> the plane. Have to fabricate some sort of mounts to attach it to the bear
> and float mounts. Probably have to remove it from the plane to open it,
> since it's upside-down, unless you want your stuff to spill all over the
> ramp into those oil stains left by somebody's DC-3.
>
> Probably have to go behind the gear legs so that a hard landing won't
cause
> the bungee bars to hit it. And blunt end forward because I have a hunch
> that's a lower-drag configuration than tapered end forward, just like a
wing
> has its rounded edge forward and tapered-to-a-knife-edge back.
>
> Anyone ever tried this?
>
> Steve Maher
> Kitfox Model 2, what's a "luggage compartment"?
> San Diego, CA
>
>
> >From: "Allan Arthur" <alnan(at)earthlink.net>
> >Reply-To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> >To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: Kitfox-List: Cargo Pod Wanted
> >Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:23:43 -0800
> >
> >
> >Former Lister, Tim Glenn is looking for a Cargo Pod, can anyone help?
> >
> >Received this message from Tim:
> > >>Hope all is well with you and your family. Hey I was wondering if you
> >are still plugged into the Kitfox e-mail list. If you are, could you
> >inquire if anyone might have a Kitfox cargo pod they would be willing to
> >sell or perhaps even rent. I'm thinking of making the trek to OSH next
> >summer and I need more cargo space. As you know my early model 5 has a
> >very
> >small area behind the seat.
> > >>Tim
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Allan Arthur
> >N40AA Series 5 Taildragger (107 hours)
> >912 ULS, Warp Drive 3 blade prop
> >Martinez, CA (Byron Airport, Hanger C8)
> >
> >
>
> Cell phone switch rules are taking effect find out more here.
> http://special.msn.com/msnbc/consumeradvocate.armx
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | FW: Rotax 618 muffler |
Sent to wrong address.
-----Original Message-----
From: wing3120 [mailto:wing3120(at)yahoo.com]
Subject: Rotax 618 muffler
I would appreciate it if anyone could provide me with info on replacing a
Rotax 618 with a Bluehead 582. My K4-1200 has just turned 300 hours so it's
time to rebuild/replace the engine. The muffler is cracked and part of the
baffle system has broken loose.
New mufflers if I could find one run $750 or so. It may be best to upgrade
to a new 582 considering the combined cost of the muffler and rebuild.
My concern is how the 582 will fit in place of the 618 considering the
difference in the exhaust system. It appears that the 618 muffler may have
been welded up special to fit the Kitfox. The canister runs down the left
side and the cone across the front under the engine mount. To make the
distance across it looks like a small section was welded to the cone. The
people at Skystar don't seem to know anything about the 618 powered kits as
they were before their time.
Any photos of the 582 exhaust installation would really help me.
Thanks
Don Berridge
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Robertson" <aerocon1(at)telusplanet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Rotax 618 muffler |
Don B,
You could do a change over to the 582 quite easily.... Your current gear
drive would be a bolt on. The engine will be a "drop in" as the engine
mounting bolts patterns are identical. The exhaust system is going to be
the biggest difference. The 582 exhaust is more compact and will fit inside
your cowl nicely. You could even use your existing propeller (as long as it
is an adjustable prop).
You may be best off in asking Skystar what chances they make to the 582
exhaust manifold (Y-Pipe). I believe they make a slight change so the
exhaust system clears the cowling.
Hope this helps
Bob Robertson
Light Engnie Services Ltd.
Rotax Service Center
St. Albert, Ab.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: FW: Rotax 618 muffler
>
> Sent to wrong address.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wing3120 [mailto:wing3120(at)yahoo.com]
> To: owner-kitfox(at)sportflight.com
> Subject: Rotax 618 muffler
>
> I would appreciate it if anyone could provide me with info on replacing a
> Rotax 618 with a Bluehead 582. My K4-1200 has just turned 300 hours so
it's
> time to rebuild/replace the engine. The muffler is cracked and part of
the
> baffle system has broken loose.
> New mufflers if I could find one run $750 or so. It may be best to
upgrade
> to a new 582 considering the combined cost of the muffler and rebuild.
> My concern is how the 582 will fit in place of the 618 considering the
> difference in the exhaust system. It appears that the 618 muffler may have
> been welded up special to fit the Kitfox. The canister runs down the left
> side and the cone across the front under the engine mount. To make the
> distance across it looks like a small section was welded to the cone. The
> people at Skystar don't seem to know anything about the 618 powered kits
as
> they were before their time.
> Any photos of the 582 exhaust installation would really help me.
>
> Thanks
> Don Berridge
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RiteAngle3(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion |
In a message dated 12/12/03 5:36:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
lcfitt(at)inreach.com writes:
And blunt end forward because I have a hunch > that's a lower-drag
configuration than tapered end forward, just like a wing > has its rounded edge
forward
and tapered-to-a-knife-edge back.
>
Lowell,
My aerodynamicist said [in my words] "the blunt trailing edge lets the air
find its own airfoil for least amount of drag"~~look at the newer cars and the
blunt rear ends, also the X-15 at the other speed range had square trailing
edges on the fins, like a triangle, sharp edge forward.
With the wing you are looking for lift :-)
Elbie
Elbie Mendenhall
www.RiteAngle.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Zakreski <szakreski(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | In-flight adjustable props |
I have over 250 hours with the NSI CAP prop. Great prop. Outstanding
quality. Absolutely no problems whatsoever.
SteveZ
Calgary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of cnichols
Subject: Kitfox-List: In-flight adjustable props
Does anyone in the group have any experience with the cockpit adjustable
prop sold by NSI for use with their EA81 Subaru conversion? What about the
Ivo in-flight adjustable prop?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Zakreski <szakreski(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion |
In that case, I suggest we should all reinstall our wheel pants backwards.
;-)
SteveZ
Calgary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
RiteAngle3(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion
In a message dated 12/12/03 5:36:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
lcfitt(at)inreach.com writes:
And blunt end forward because I have a hunch > that's a lower-drag
configuration than tapered end forward, just like a wing > has its rounded
edge forward
and tapered-to-a-knife-edge back.
>
Lowell,
My aerodynamicist said [in my words] "the blunt trailing edge lets the air
find its own airfoil for least amount of drag"~~look at the newer cars and
the
blunt rear ends, also the X-15 at the other speed range had square trailing
edges on the fins, like a triangle, sharp edge forward.
With the wing you are looking for lift :-)
Elbie
Elbie Mendenhall
www.RiteAngle.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion |
| From: | charles b cook <cookflys(at)juno.com> |
Steve keep us posted on what you learn as I am very interested in buying
building some type of pod.
Charles Cook
writes:
>
> I've often wondered if it would be possible to use an
> automotive-type
> external luggage carrier on a Kitfox, mounted under the belly just
> behind
> the gear legs. Specifically, one of the long black plastic ones from
> the
> Yakima or Thule outfits. You probably know the one I mean: Long and
> narrow,
> tapered at one end, sort of squared off on the other end.
>
> They are usually mounted on top of cars, tapered end to the front
> and curved
> surface on top. I was thinking of turning it both upside-down and
> backwards,
> so the blunt end was forward and the flat side nestled against the
> bottom of
> the plane. Have to fabricate some sort of mounts to attach it to the
> bear
> and float mounts. Probably have to remove it from the plane to open
> it,
> since it's upside-down, unless you want your stuff to spill all over
> the
> ramp into those oil stains left by somebody's DC-3.
>
> Probably have to go behind the gear legs so that a hard landing
> won't cause
> the bungee bars to hit it. And blunt end forward because I have a
> hunch
> that's a lower-drag configuration than tapered end forward, just
> like a wing
> has its rounded edge forward and tapered-to-a-knife-edge back.
>
> Anyone ever tried this?
>
> Steve Maher
> Kitfox Model 2, what's a "luggage compartment"?
> San Diego, CA
>
>
> >From: "Allan Arthur" <alnan(at)earthlink.net>
> >Reply-To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> >To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: Kitfox-List: Cargo Pod Wanted
> >Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:23:43 -0800
> >
>
> >
> >Former Lister, Tim Glenn is looking for a Cargo Pod, can anyone
> help?
> >
> >Received this message from Tim:
> > >>Hope all is well with you and your family. Hey I was wondering
> if you
> >are still plugged into the Kitfox e-mail list. If you are, could
> you
> inquire if anyone might have a Kitfox cargo pod they would be willing
> to
> >sell or perhaps even rent. I'm thinking of making the trek to OSH
> next
> >summer and I need more cargo space. As you know my early model 5
> has a
> >very
> >small area behind the seat.
> > >>Tim
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Allan Arthur
> >N40AA Series 5 Taildragger (107 hours)
> >912 ULS, Warp Drive 3 blade prop
> >Martinez, CA (Byron Airport, Hanger C8)
> >
> >
>
> Cell phone switch rules are taking effect find out more here.
> http://special.msn.com/msnbc/consumeradvocate.armx
>
>
>
=
>
=
>
=
>
=
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)inreach.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion |
I appreciate the impression given by a couple of recent posts, that I have
responded in a rather scientific manner regarding the airfoil benefits of
the cargo pod, but to clarify my contribution to this subject, I have copied
and pasted my actual comments which follow:
"Steve,
Interesting idea. A local builder used a plaster pan - the kind plasterers
use to mix the stuff on his airplane. It looked pretty good.
Lowell"
----- Original Message -----
From: <RiteAngle3(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion
>
> In a message dated 12/12/03 5:36:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> lcfitt(at)inreach.com writes:
> And blunt end forward because I have a hunch > that's a lower-drag
> configuration than tapered end forward, just like a wing > has its rounded
edge forward
> and tapered-to-a-knife-edge back.
> >
> Lowell,
> My aerodynamicist said [in my words] "the blunt trailing edge lets the
air
> find its own airfoil for least amount of drag"~~look at the newer cars and
the
> blunt rear ends, also the X-15 at the other speed range had square
trailing
> edges on the fins, like a triangle, sharp edge forward.
>
> With the wing you are looking for lift :-)
> Elbie
> Elbie Mendenhall
> www.RiteAngle.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)inreach.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion |
Steve, Maybe our lift strut fairings also.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Zakreski" <szakreski(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion
>
> In that case, I suggest we should all reinstall our wheel pants backwards.
> ;-)
>
> SteveZ
> Calgary
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> RiteAngle3(at)aol.com
> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion
>
>
> In a message dated 12/12/03 5:36:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> lcfitt(at)inreach.com writes:
> And blunt end forward because I have a hunch > that's a lower-drag
> configuration than tapered end forward, just like a wing > has its rounded
> edge forward
> and tapered-to-a-knife-edge back.
> >
> Lowell,
> My aerodynamicist said [in my words] "the blunt trailing edge lets the
air
> find its own airfoil for least amount of drag"~~look at the newer cars and
> the
> blunt rear ends, also the X-15 at the other speed range had square
trailing
> edges on the fins, like a triangle, sharp edge forward.
>
> With the wing you are looking for lift :-)
> Elbie
> Elbie Mendenhall
> www.RiteAngle.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Zakreski <szakreski(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion |
Elbie
You may have interpreted his comments backwards. Once again, this is regular
teaching in fluid mechanics 101 (twice in one month!) An object blunt on the
leading edge (within reason) allows the air to form its own shape. On the
trailing edge, it creates a significant negative pressure area causing a
suction on the object. Hence the standard teardrop for wheel pants etc.
Cars have a practical limitation on length, and it eventually comes down to
accepting the losses from a blunt tail rather than the impracticalities of a
6 foot tail cone.
SteveZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
RiteAngle3(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion
In a message dated 12/12/03 5:36:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
lcfitt(at)inreach.com writes:
And blunt end forward because I have a hunch > that's a lower-drag
configuration than tapered end forward, just like a wing > has its rounded
edge forward
and tapered-to-a-knife-edge back.
>
Lowell,
My aerodynamicist said [in my words] "the blunt trailing edge lets the air
find its own airfoil for least amount of drag"~~look at the newer cars and
the
blunt rear ends, also the X-15 at the other speed range had square trailing
edges on the fins, like a triangle, sharp edge forward.
With the wing you are looking for lift :-)
Elbie
Elbie Mendenhall
www.RiteAngle.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RiteAngle3(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion |
In a message dated 12/13/03 9:21:52 AM Pacific Standard Time,
szakreski(at)shaw.ca writes:
On the
trailing edge, it creates a significant negative pressure area causing a
suction on the object. Hence the standard teardrop for wheel pants etc
Perhaps the answer it to contact the company that designed the cartop
holder and see what their answer is :-)
Which causes the most drag, the lift created or the "suction" I don't know,
I am just going from what my Aero man told me and my observations.
I do know on the vane on the RiteAngle until we went to the current vane
we had very little stability or accuracy and we tried all sorts of airfoils,
but we were looking for something different that just a lifting airfoil. It made
the system work as designed, even in '93~on the first ones
I was told the airfoil we use has the lowest drag, highest centering
force, and the least possibility of flutter than anything my Aero man tested in
nearly 30 years at Douglas A/C in fighter aircraft design.
Elbie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Zakreski <szakreski(at)shaw.ca> |
Going further...
I recall being taught that a lot of "fine tuning" was taking place at the
time to minimize the losses associated with a blunt tail object. In other
words, GIVEN that you are stuck with having to place a somewhat blunt tailed
object into an air stream, there were ways being researched to minimize
these losses, and the past practice of using a half-aerodynamic design often
gave much worse performance than the chopped rear end.
Also...the aerodynamics relating to an object slithering quickly over a flat
surface (like a car) are somewhat different that an aircraft.
SteveZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve
Zakreski
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion
Elbie
You may have interpreted his comments backwards. Once again, this is regular
teaching in fluid mechanics 101 (twice in one month!) An object blunt on the
leading edge (within reason) allows the air to form its own shape. On the
trailing edge, it creates a significant negative pressure area causing a
suction on the object. Hence the standard teardrop for wheel pants etc.
Cars have a practical limitation on length, and it eventually comes down to
accepting the losses from a blunt tail rather than the impracticalities of a
6 foot tail cone.
SteveZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
RiteAngle3(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion
In a message dated 12/12/03 5:36:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
lcfitt(at)inreach.com writes:
And blunt end forward because I have a hunch > that's a lower-drag
configuration than tapered end forward, just like a wing > has its rounded
edge forward
and tapered-to-a-knife-edge back.
>
Lowell,
My aerodynamicist said [in my words] "the blunt trailing edge lets the air
find its own airfoil for least amount of drag"~~look at the newer cars and
the
blunt rear ends, also the X-15 at the other speed range had square trailing
edges on the fins, like a triangle, sharp edge forward.
With the wing you are looking for lift :-)
Elbie
Elbie Mendenhall
www.RiteAngle.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Zakreski <szakreski(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion |
Well...admit. Maybe they covered that in fluid mechanics 102...
SteveZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
RiteAngle3(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion
In a message dated 12/13/03 9:21:52 AM Pacific Standard Time,
szakreski(at)shaw.ca writes:
On the
trailing edge, it creates a significant negative pressure area causing a
suction on the object. Hence the standard teardrop for wheel pants etc
Perhaps the answer it to contact the company that designed the cartop
holder and see what their answer is :-)
Which causes the most drag, the lift created or the "suction" I don't know,
I am just going from what my Aero man told me and my observations.
I do know on the vane on the RiteAngle until we went to the current vane
we had very little stability or accuracy and we tried all sorts of airfoils,
but we were looking for something different that just a lifting airfoil. It
made
the system work as designed, even in '93~on the first ones
I was told the airfoil we use has the lowest drag, highest centering
force, and the least possibility of flutter than anything my Aero man tested
in
nearly 30 years at Douglas A/C in fighter aircraft design.
Elbie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Zakreski <szakreski(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion |
>>Well...admit. Maybe they covered that in fluid mechanics 102...
Elbie
That was supposed to say "Well...dammit..." but my spell checker changed
it. !!?
Anyway...fun discussion.
SteveZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
RiteAngle3(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion
In a message dated 12/13/03 9:21:52 AM Pacific Standard Time,
szakreski(at)shaw.ca writes:
On the
trailing edge, it creates a significant negative pressure area causing a
suction on the object. Hence the standard teardrop for wheel pants etc
Perhaps the answer it to contact the company that designed the cartop
holder and see what their answer is :-)
Which causes the most drag, the lift created or the "suction" I don't know,
I am just going from what my Aero man told me and my observations.
I do know on the vane on the RiteAngle until we went to the current vane
we had very little stability or accuracy and we tried all sorts of airfoils,
but we were looking for something different that just a lifting airfoil. It
made
the system work as designed, even in '93~on the first ones
I was told the airfoil we use has the lowest drag, highest centering
force, and the least possibility of flutter than anything my Aero man tested
in
nearly 30 years at Douglas A/C in fighter aircraft design.
Elbie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Hammond <kitfox(at)itsys3.com> |
I'm in the process of flight testing my series 6. I detect a
slight left wing heavy while flying. What is the best way to
adjust the rigging to eliminate this?
Should the lift spar rod ends on the right wing be slightly
lengthened to increase its dihedral? Both rod ends or just one
to change the washout (twist)?
Ideas, anecdotes, and suggestions are welcome.
Bill Hammond
N913KF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh(at)rapidnet.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion |
Just want to raise one issue that I haven't seen mentioned.
From the initial description, it sounds like you are anticipating
installing this aft of the CG. This will cause real problems shifting
the CG with various loads. If it can be located right at the CG this
problem largely goes away.
With the spring gear it may be possible to locate this at the CG AND
clean up the aerodynamically dirty bottom of our planes at the same
time. Just need to leave room for the gear to flex.
See the Airdale designs.
http://69.56.183.114/~airdale/new_airdale.htm
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Zakreski
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion
>>Well...admit. Maybe they covered that in fluid mechanics 102...
Elbie
That was supposed to say "Well...dammit..." but my spell checker
changed
it. !!?
Anyway...fun discussion.
SteveZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
RiteAngle3(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion
In a message dated 12/13/03 9:21:52 AM Pacific Standard Time,
szakreski(at)shaw.ca writes:
On the
trailing edge, it creates a significant negative pressure area causing a
suction on the object. Hence the standard teardrop for wheel pants etc
Perhaps the answer it to contact the company that designed the cartop
holder and see what their answer is :-)
Which causes the most drag, the lift created or the "suction" I don't
know,
I am just going from what my Aero man told me and my observations.
I do know on the vane on the RiteAngle until we went to the current
vane
we had very little stability or accuracy and we tried all sorts of
airfoils,
but we were looking for something different that just a lifting airfoil.
It
made
the system work as designed, even in '93~on the first ones
I was told the airfoil we use has the lowest drag, highest centering
force, and the least possibility of flutter than anything my Aero man
tested
in
nearly 30 years at Douglas A/C in fighter aircraft design.
Elbie
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RiteAngle3(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 12/13/03 10:45:03 AM Pacific Standard Time,
kitfox(at)itsys3.com writes:
I'm in the process of flight testing my series 6. I detect a
slight left wing heavy while flying. What is the best way to
adjust the rigging to eliminate this?
Should the lift spar rod ends on the right wing be slightly
lengthened to increase its dihedral?
>>Dihedral won't change the wing heavy condition
Both rod ends or just one to change the washout (twist)?
>>Do only one thing at a time, slowly, like a half turn~~REAR STRUT Shorten
left one or lengthen rt. one, but ONLY one at a time, and slowly, Been there
done that :-)
>Makes no difference what type of aircraft, what you are doing is changing
the AOA of the wing by twisting it, if shortening Left one you are increasing
AOA of the outer section basically. If the left wing is heavy either it needs to
create more lift, or the Rt. needs less lift.
The AOA varies from fuse to tip normally called twist, You want some twist
to insure center section stalls prior to outer section i.e. outer section has
less AOA than inner section
Elbie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com> |
Bill,
To keep it simple, I would try turning the left rear
rod end in 1/2 half turn to see what that does for
you. It should give you a small but measurable
change. After testing, if needed, try another 1/2
turn in.
If that still isn't enough, go to the right wing front
rod end and bring that in 1/2 half turn. One more 1/2
turn in if testing shows it is still needed there.
That gives you up to 2 full turns difference without
making much change to either wing. That should be
enough to cover a "slight" heavy wing.
I like starting with "in" first because I don't have
any witness holes in my struts. More threads in are
better.
If it is heavier than that, you can go "out" using 1/2
turn increments up to 1 turn on the left front and
right rear rod ends, one at a time.
That should get you a pretty good lift change without
any major change to any one rod end fitting or wing.
Kurt S.
--- Bill Hammond wrote:
>
>
> I'm in the process of flight testing my series 6. I
> detect a
> slight left wing heavy while flying. What is the
> best way to
> adjust the rigging to eliminate this?
>
> Bill Hammond
> N913KF
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New ownership? |
Wonder if Airdale could the backing for this?
Eliminate possible hard feelings and open both fleets
for upgrades.
Kurt S.
--- sid wrote:
>
>
>
> Might be something for the factories in question to
> look at! Give one hell
> of a rounded out line of small aircraft with
> terrific
> versitility................
> ------------------
> > It would be historically funny if Avid and SS were
> > rejoined under new ownership.
> >
> > Kurt S.
> >
> > --- JMCBEAN wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I have been hesitant to say anything........ I
> have
> > > had several customers
> > > call about the status of Avid, have heard some
> talk
> > > about it and have had
> > > potential customers come to Skystar for a tour
> after
> > > they went to Avid.
> > >
> > > The bottom line of what I have heard is that
> Avid is
> > > out of business... the
> > > hanger in MT is empty and people are looking for
> the
> > > assets which seem to be
> > > "on the move".
> > >
> > > Blue Skies!!
> > > John & Debra McBean
> > > "The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JMCBEAN" <JDMCBEAN(at)cableone.net> |
Bill,
If you have definitely determined that it is the wing and not yaw that
is
causing the wing heavy condition then I would suggest that you turn the
forward right wing rod end in probably one turn. If you need to correct more
then two turns then start to split the difference between the right and left
wings. You should only need to adjust the forward rod ends and most likely
only the one side.
If you fly from the right seat does it still want to turn left ??
Blue Skies!!
John & Debra McBean
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bill Hammond
Subject: Kitfox-List: Rigging
I'm in the process of flight testing my series 6. I detect a
slight left wing heavy while flying. What is the best way to
adjust the rigging to eliminate this?
Should the lift spar rod ends on the right wing be slightly
lengthened to increase its dihedral? Both rod ends or just one
to change the washout (twist)?
Ideas, anecdotes, and suggestions are welcome.
Bill Hammond
N913KF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger McConnell" <rdmac(at)swbell.net> |
Bill,
The slight heavy left wing to me would suggest a little too much positive
incidence on the right wing. I would shorten the right front rod end, or
maybe lengthen the right rear. This would also increase your washout on the
right wing........IMHO
Roger Mac
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bill Hammond
Subject: Kitfox-List: Rigging
I'm in the process of flight testing my series 6. I detect a
slight left wing heavy while flying. What is the best way to
adjust the rigging to eliminate this?
Should the lift spar rod ends on the right wing be slightly
lengthened to increase its dihedral? Both rod ends or just one
to change the washout (twist)?
Ideas, anecdotes, and suggestions are welcome.
Bill Hammond
N913KF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Verheughe <michel(at)online.no> |
| Subject: | Re: ski plane photos |
W Duke wrote:
> Does anyone still have the link to the Swiss ski plane photos?
Here it is, Maxwell:
http://www.gletscherflug.ch/glacierlanding.htm
Cheers,
Michel
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion |
Lift struts already are "blunt end" forward,,,, aren't they????? Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)inreach.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion
>
> Steve, Maybe our lift strut fairings also.
>
> Lowell
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Zakreski" <szakreski(at)shaw.ca>
> To:
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion
>
>
> >
> > In that case, I suggest we should all reinstall our wheel pants
backwards.
> > ;-)
> >
> > SteveZ
> > Calgary
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> > RiteAngle3(at)aol.com
> > To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: Cargo Pod Suggestion
> >
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 12/12/03 5:36:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > lcfitt(at)inreach.com writes:
> > And blunt end forward because I have a hunch > that's a lower-drag
> > configuration than tapered end forward, just like a wing > has its
rounded
> > edge forward
> > and tapered-to-a-knife-edge back.
> > >
> > Lowell,
> > My aerodynamicist said [in my words] "the blunt trailing edge lets the
> air
> > find its own airfoil for least amount of drag"~~look at the newer cars
and
> > the
> > blunt rear ends, also the X-15 at the other speed range had square
> trailing
> > edges on the fins, like a triangle, sharp edge forward.
> >
> > With the wing you are looking for lift :-)
> > Elbie
> > Elbie Mendenhall
> > www.RiteAngle.com
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "sid" <sid(at)i2k.com> |
Kurt, I sent a copy of this on to Steve Winder. He will see to it that
anyone with the means will get the idea and comments...........might even
see some results from all of this. We can only benefit in the long run!
Sid
---------
> Wonder if Airdale could the backing for this?
> Eliminate possible hard feelings and open both fleets
> for upgrades.
>
> Kurt S.
>
> >
> > Might be something for the factories in question to
> > look at! Give one hell
> > of a rounded out line of small aircraft with
> > terrific
> > versatility................
> > ------------------
> > > It would be historically funny if Avid and SS were
> > > rejoined under new ownership.
> > >
> > > > I have been hesitant to say anything........ I
> > have
> > > > had several customers
> > > > call about the status of Avid, have heard some
> > talk
> > > > about it and have had
> > > > potential customers come to Skystar for a tour
> > after
> > > > they went to Avid.
> > > >
> > > > The bottom line of what I have heard is that
> > Avid is
> > > > out of business... the
> > > > hanger in MT is empty and people are looking for
> > the
> > > > assets which seem to be
> > > > "on the move".
> > > >
> __________________________________
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Tomlin" <thomastomlin(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Cargo Pod and spring gear ?? |
Any suggestions or photos of how to attach the Kitfox pod
with the spring gear?
I picked up a used one and the forward mounting points are
covered by the wide gear.
Tom Tomlin
IV speedster
________________________________________________________________________________