Kitfox-Archive.digest.vol-ef
December 01, 2006 - December 07, 2006
Most of us around Houston have used the Carquest
85056 (if I remember the number right) for the last
10 years and for nearly a couple thousand hrs
combined on our 912s with no problems. What's the
beef?
--- Original Message ---
| From: | johnciolino(at)comcast.net |
list(at)matronics.com>
| Subject: | Re: Oil Filters for 912UL |
>Jimmy,
>
>I would agree there is no reluctance to discuss oil
filters but there is certainly a lack of information.
It aggravates my penny-pinching soul to pay as much
as asked for a Rotax filter when an appropriate auto
filter will do the same thing. I tried to find the
specs for the Rotax filer but had no luck. If you
have info please post we all need it--even if we
decide not to use it.
>
>John Ciolino
>Movel IV-1200
>N9294Y
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>From: "Jimmie Blackwell"
>
>In recent days I have done some research on oil
filters and in particular Rotax filters versus
Carquest and Wix filters. The results are rather
revealing.
>
>I think that all Kitfoxers should know these
results, however there seems to be a reluctance to
discuss oil filters on the list, so I will not
publish the results of my research on the list.
Guess I am to dumb to understand why very few on the
list want to discuss this important topic.
>
>I will be happy to provide the information to anyone
that contacts me directly on line or on my cell phone
512 695-6627.
>
>Jimmie
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "wannafly" <wannaflyfox4(at)hotmail.com> |
I have an EA81 subaru engine and use auto fuel. I want to do a long cross country
and it is not always possible to get auto fuel at all the stops. Any experience
with changing to aviation fuel or mixing the differant types?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=78504#78504
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kathy & Dick Toomey" <llltoome(at)gvtel.com> |
I am curious to what size radiators are being used (Square inches) with
success for proper cooling on a Subaru EA-81 engine with carburetors.
Also is an oil cooler necessary?
Thanks
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GAry Olson <n113gb(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Beacon? Strobe? |
Does anybody know what are the intensity minimums are for position/anti-collision
lights per the FAA?
----- Original Message ----
From: Bill Hammond <kitfox(at)itsys3.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:51:10 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
I went with the LEDs and constructed "bulbs" which fit into the
unmodified Whelen sockets. Sources, pictures, and specifics are
on my web site (about halfway down the page) at:
www.itsys3.com/kitfox/discover.shtml
Bill Hammond
Series 6 N913KF
Parker, Colorado
kirk hull wrote:
> I had the same feeling and gutted the fixture and made a micarda insert
> that holds a 20 watt halogen bulb from the auto parts store ($1.50).
> The actual wheelen parts came from a junk pile at the local shop.
> LEDs would work great inside this type of fixture as they do not but
> out as much heat. Where are you getting your LEDs and how big are they?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:26 PM
> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
>
>
>
> Kirk,
>
> Thanks for the idea. I just can't stand the thought of paying Whellen
> $300 for a friken lightbulb. I found a source for high intensity LED's
> and plan to see what I can develop.
>
> Dan
>
> kirk hull wrote:
>
> I made mine out of a tail light assembly with a wing tip lens and a
> heavy-duty turn signal flasher.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
> Billingsley
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:15 AM
> To: kitfox-list
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
>
>
>
> Has anyone found or know of a low profile beacon that could be fit
> to the top of the vertical Stab? What are others doing for this? I
> have a 912s, so the Amp draw needs to be kept low.
>
> Still Building
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan B
>
>
>
>
>
> www.aeroelectric.com
>
> www.kitlog.com
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> www.aeroelectric.com
>
> www.kitlog.com <http://www.kitlog.com>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Smythe" <dosmythe(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Beacon? Strobe? |
Gary,
That's a good question. Same question I tried to figure out about 8
years ago. I'm under the impression that the Aero Flash units did/do not
meet the minimums for FAA requirements. Maybe your question will have
better luck this time. Sorry, I'm still not sure. The only good part is,
an FAA inspector probably doesn't know either.
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
From: "GAry Olson" <n113gb(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
Does anybody know what are the intensity minimums are for
position/anti-collision lights per the FAA?
----- Original Message ----
From: Bill Hammond <kitfox(at)itsys3.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:51:10 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
I went with the LEDs and constructed "bulbs" which fit into the
unmodified Whelen sockets. Sources, pictures, and specifics are
on my web site (about halfway down the page) at:
www.itsys3.com/kitfox/discover.shtml
Bill Hammond
Series 6 N913KF
Parker, Colorado
kirk hull wrote:
> I had the same feeling and gutted the fixture and made a micarda insert
> that holds a 20 watt halogen bulb from the auto parts store ($1.50).
> The actual wheelen parts came from a junk pile at the local shop.
> LEDs would work great inside this type of fixture as they do not but
> out as much heat. Where are you getting your LEDs and how big are they?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
> Billingsley
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:26 PM
> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
>
>
> Kirk,
>
> Thanks for the idea. I just can't stand the thought of paying Whellen
> $300 for a friken lightbulb. I found a source for high intensity LED's
> and plan to see what I can develop.
>
> Dan
>
> kirk hull wrote:
>
> I made mine out of a tail light assembly with a wing tip lens and a
> heavy-duty turn signal flasher.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
> Billingsley
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:15 AM
> To: kitfox-list
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
>
>
> Has anyone found or know of a low profile beacon that could be fit
> to the top of the vertical Stab? What are others doing for this? I
> have a 912s, so the Amp draw needs to be kept low.
>
> Still Building
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan B
>
>
> www.aeroelectric.com
>
> www.kitlog.com
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>
>
> www.aeroelectric.com
>
> www.kitlog.com <http://www.kitlog.com>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JOHN May <jpm7940(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Oil Filters for 912UL |
Jimmie,
This is John May iin Kalamazoo Michigan. I have a Model IV-1200 Speedster with
a Rotax 912UL (approx 735 Hours). I am the second owner ( I bought it at 500
Hours). The original owner/builder told me to use the NAPA gold #1056 spin on
oil filter. Every other oil change I have the oil analysis done by Blackstone.
The oil analysis up to this point has always been in line with what is to be
expected for its age. I want to do what is best for the engine so I am interested
in what you have found out. John May
Jimmie Blackwell wrote:
In recent days I have done some research on oil filters and in particular
Rotax filters versus Carquest and Wix filters. The results are rather revealing.
I think that all Kitfoxers should know these results, however there seems to
be a reluctance to discuss oil filters on the list, so I will not publish the
results of my research on the list. Guess I am to dumb to understand why very
few on the list want to discuss this important topic.
I will be happy to provide the information to anyone that contacts me directly
on line or on my cell phone 512 695-6627.
Jimmie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kirk hull" <kirkhull(at)kc.rr.com> |
There is an AC out dealing with that. I will try to find it
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Smythe
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
Gary,
That's a good question. Same question I tried to figure out about 8
years ago. I'm under the impression that the Aero Flash units did/do not
meet the minimums for FAA requirements. Maybe your question will have
better luck this time. Sorry, I'm still not sure. The only good part is,
an FAA inspector probably doesn't know either.
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
From: "GAry Olson" <n113gb(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
Does anybody know what are the intensity minimums are for
position/anti-collision lights per the FAA?
----- Original Message ----
From: Bill Hammond <kitfox(at)itsys3.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:51:10 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
I went with the LEDs and constructed "bulbs" which fit into the
unmodified Whelen sockets. Sources, pictures, and specifics are
on my web site (about halfway down the page) at:
www.itsys3.com/kitfox/discover.shtml
Bill Hammond
Series 6 N913KF
Parker, Colorado
kirk hull wrote:
> I had the same feeling and gutted the fixture and made a micarda insert
> that holds a 20 watt halogen bulb from the auto parts store ($1.50).
> The actual wheelen parts came from a junk pile at the local shop.
> LED?s would work great inside this type of fixture as they do not but
> out as much heat. Where are you getting your LED?s and how big are they?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
> Billingsley
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:26 PM
> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
>
>
> Kirk,
>
> Thanks for the idea. I just can't stand the thought of paying Whellen
> $300 for a friken lightbulb. I found a source for high intensity LED's
> and plan to see what I can develop.
>
> Dan
>
> kirk hull wrote:
>
> I made mine out of a tail light assembly with a wing tip lens and a
> heavy-duty turn signal flasher.
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
> Billingsley
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:15 AM
> To: kitfox-list
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
>
>
> Has anyone found or know of a low profile beacon that could be fit
> to the top of the vertical Stab? What are others doing for this? I
> have a 912s, so the Amp draw needs to be kept low.
>
> Still Building
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan B
>
>
> www.aeroelectric.com
>
> www.kitlog.com
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>
>
> www.aeroelectric.com
>
> www.kitlog.com <http://www.kitlog.com>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kirk hull" <kirkhull(at)kc.rr.com> |
I have run 100LL in many cars ( with no cats ) and also in my fox with a
Subaru. No problems with any of the engines
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of wannafly
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 4:14 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: type of fuel
I have an EA81 subaru engine and use auto fuel. I want to do a long cross
country and it is not always possible to get auto fuel at all the stops. Any
experience with changing to aviation fuel or mixing the differant types?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=78504#78504
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kirk hull" <kirkhull(at)kc.rr.com> |
The info is in AC 20-30B that can be found on FAA.GOV under advisory
circulars or I have a 648 KB PDF that I can email if needed
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of GAry Olson
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
Does anybody know what are the intensity minimums are for
position/anti-collision lights per the FAA?
----- Original Message ----
From: Bill Hammond <kitfox(at)itsys3.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:51:10 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
I went with the LEDs and constructed "bulbs" which fit into the
unmodified Whelen sockets. Sources, pictures, and specifics are
on my web site (about halfway down the page) at:
www.itsys3.com/kitfox/discover.shtml
Bill Hammond
Series 6 N913KF
Parker, Colorado
kirk hull wrote:
> I had the same feeling and gutted the fixture and made a micarda insert
> that holds a 20 watt halogen bulb from the auto parts store ($1.50).
> The actual wheelen parts came from a junk pile at the local shop.
> LED?s would work great inside this type of fixture as they do not but
> out as much heat. Where are you getting your LED?s and how big are they?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Billingsley
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:26 PM
> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
>
>
>
> Kirk,
>
> Thanks for the idea. I just can't stand the thought of paying Whellen
> $300 for a friken lightbulb. I found a source for high intensity LED's
> and plan to see what I can develop.
>
> Dan
>
> kirk hull wrote:
>
> I made mine out of a tail light assembly with a wing tip lens and a
> heavy-duty turn signal flasher.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
> Billingsley
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:15 AM
> To: kitfox-list
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
>
>
>
> Has anyone found or know of a low profile beacon that could be fit
> to the top of the vertical Stab? What are others doing for this? I
> have a 912s, so the Amp draw needs to be kept low.
>
> Still Building
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan B
>
>
>
>
>
> www.aeroelectric.com
>
> www.kitlog.com
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> www.aeroelectric.com
>
> www.kitlog.com <http://www.kitlog.com>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PWilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Beacon? Strobe? |
Don't have the info you all want but a search of
the aeroelectric archives no doubt will yield the
data. They had a long thread on the subject.
Paul
============
At 03:31 PM 12/1/2006, you wrote:
>
>Gary,
> That's a good question. Same question I
> tried to figure out about 8 years ago. I'm
> under the impression that the Aero Flash units
> did/do not meet the minimums for FAA
> requirements. Maybe your question will have
> better luck this time. Sorry, I'm still not
> sure. The only good part is, an FAA inspector probably doesn't know either.
>
>Don Smythe
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "GAry Olson" <n113gb(at)yahoo.com>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 6:12 PM
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
>
>
>Does anybody know what are the intensity
>minimums are for position/anti-collision lights per the FAA?
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Bill Hammond <kitfox(at)itsys3.com>
>To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
>Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:51:10 PM
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
>
>
>I went with the LEDs and constructed "bulbs" which fit into the
>unmodified Whelen sockets. Sources, pictures, and specifics are
>on my web site (about halfway down the page) at:
>
>www.itsys3.com/kitfox/discover.shtml
>
>Bill Hammond
>Series 6 N913KF
>Parker, Colorado
>
>kirk hull wrote:
>>I had the same feeling and gutted the fixture and made a micarda insert
>>that holds a 20 watt halogen bulb from the auto parts store ($1.50).
>> The actual wheelen parts came from a junk pile at the local shop.
>> LEDs would work great inside this type of fixture as they do not but
>>out as much heat. Where are you getting your LEDs and how big are they?
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley
>>Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:26 PM
>>To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
>>
>>
>>
>>Kirk,
>>
>>Thanks for the idea. I just can't stand the thought of paying Whellen
>>$300 for a friken lightbulb. I found a source for high intensity LED's
>>and plan to see what I can develop.
>>
>>Dan
>>
>>kirk hull wrote:
>>
>> I made mine out of a tail light assembly with a wing tip lens and a
>> heavy-duty turn signal flasher.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
>> Billingsley
>> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:15 AM
>> To: kitfox-list
>> Subject: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
>>
>>
>>
>> Has anyone found or know of a low profile beacon that could be fit
>> to the top of the vertical Stab? What are others doing for this? I
>> have a 912s, so the Amp draw needs to be kept low.
>>
>> Still Building
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Dan B
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>www.aeroelectric.com
>>
>>www.kitlog.com
>>
>>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>www.aeroelectric.com
>>
>>www.kitlog.com <http://www.kitlog.com>
>>
>>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ron schick" <roncarolnikko(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Beacon? Strobe? |
Deke I'll post an after picture. The funnel sits pointing downward as if in
use. the flat top is where the base of the light attaches. The spout and
part of the sides get cut off to form a channel which drops over the
vertical stab. Place plastic barrier over stab, then place funnel over,
then fill with epoxy. Remove, sand paint, walla. Sorry I don't have a
close up, but it flares to a flat spot like a Cessna. Ron NB Ore
>From: "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
>Reply-To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
>Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 06:37:06 -0500
>
>
>Ron, as much as I tried, I can't get my feeble brain to visualize what you
>described for a mounting. Can you try it from a different angle?
>Thanks,
>Deke
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "ron schick" <roncarolnikko(at)hotmail.com>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:28 PM
>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
>
>
>
> >
> > Dan go to Chief Aircraft or Aircraft Spruce. There are self contained
> > beacons for 50- 125.00. I found one on fleabay and mounted it on my
> > vertical stab. I used a plastic funnel cut to fit down over the stab,
>then
> > poured full of epoxy and chopped glass for a nice fairing/ mount. The
>low
> > profile thing is hard to achieve without needing a belly mount also.
>Ron
>NB
> > Ore
> >
> >
> > >From: Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com>
> > >Reply-To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> > >To: kitfox-list
> > >Subject: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
> > >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:15:25 -0800 (PST)
> > >
> > >Has anyone found or know of a low profile beacon that could be fit to
>the
> > >top of the vertical Stab? What are others doing for this? I have a
>912s,
>so
> > >the Amp draw needs to be kept low.
> > > Still Building
> > > Thanks,
> > > Dan B
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day
>trial!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
Microsoft Office Live
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Margaret Hastedt" <hastedt(at)iodp.tamu.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: type of fuel |
I haven't used anyting BUT avgas in my EA-81 engine. No problems to date, but with
only 45 hours of flight time it's not very conclusive. I haven't been using
any lead scavenging products either. To be continued...
Margaret H.
Classic IV N3076U
>>> wannaflyfox4(at)hotmail.com 12/1/2006 4:14 PM >>>
I have an EA81 subaru engine and use auto fuel. I want to do a long cross country
and it is not always possible to get auto fuel at all the stops. Any experience
with changing to aviation fuel or mixing the differant types?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=78504#78504
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Subaru EA-81 |
| From: | "avtar412" <janderson412(at)hotmail.com> |
I have a water to oil cooler and 2 tubes through the sump with good airflow and
have no trouble with cooling. Turbo as well. Radiator, I started with NSI brass
unit but had to go to a purpose built aluminum unit and cools well now. 750mm
x 250 x 80 deep.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=78597#78597
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: type of fuel |
| From: | "avtar412" <janderson412(at)hotmail.com> |
Me too, avgas in car engines in the past. So long as the engine runs at operating
temp ok. Don't use fully synthetic oil.
I use a mixture of Avgas and motor spirit in my EA81 and no bothers.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=78598#78598
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
Kirk,
I am getting my LED's from http://www.superbrightleds.com/led_prods.htm
There are some good places on the web that help with how-to applications such as this one that has a calculator to determine the resistors used http://metku.net/index.html?sect=view&n=1&path=mods/ledcalc/index_eng
I have ordered several LED's to experiment with on small circuit boards. Will
let all know how it goes.
Dan
kirk hull wrote:
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } I had the same feeling
and gutted the fixture and made a micarda insert that holds a 20 w halogen
bulb from the auto parts store ($1.50). The actual wheelen parts came from a
junk pile at the local shop. LEDs would work great inside this type of fixture
as they do not but out as much heat. Where are you getting your LEDs and how
big are they?
---------------------------------
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:26 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
Kirk,
Thanks for the idea. I just can't stand the thought of paying Whellen $300
for a friken lightbulb. I found a source for high intensity LED's and plan to
see what I can develop.
Dan
kirk hull wrote:
I made mine out of a tail light assembly with a wing tip lens and a heavy-duty
turn signal flasher.
---------------------------------
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:15 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Beacon? Strobe?
Has anyone found or know of a low profile beacon that could be fit to the
top of the vertical Stab? What are others doing for this? I have a 912s, so the
Amp draw needs to be kept low.
Still Building
Thanks,
Dan B
www.aeroelectric.com
www.buildersbooks.com
www.kitlog.com
www.homebuilthelp.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
www.aeroelectric.com
www.buildersbooks.com
www.kitlog.com
www.homebuilthelp.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Graichen" <n10pg(at)neo.rr.com> |
I have used nothing but 100LL av-fuel in over 1000 hrs of operation in my
NSI EA-81 Subaru without any problems.
Peter Graichen
http:/home.neo.rr.com/n10pg/kitfox.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kirk hull" <kirkhull(at)kc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: type of fuel |
What is the problem with synthetic oil?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of avtar412
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:10 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: type of fuel
Me too, avgas in car engines in the past. So long as the engine runs at
operating temp ok. Don't use fully synthetic oil.
I use a mixture of Avgas and motor spirit in my EA81 and no bothers.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=78598#78598
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Andrew Matthaey" <spaghettiohead(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: type of fuel |
I've heard the Subaru's and VW's really, really don't like being run in
engines that also burn AvGas?? I know Mark here on the list saw some nasty
side effects of using the two...promptly switched back to mineral-based.
Andrew
CFI/CFII/MEI
ERJ-145 Training
KF3
>From: "kirk hull" <kirkhull(at)kc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: type of fuel
>Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 09:14:54 -0600
>
>
>What is the problem with synthetic oil?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of avtar412
>Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:10 AM
>To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: type of fuel
>
>
>Me too, avgas in car engines in the past. So long as the engine runs at
>operating temp ok. Don't use fully synthetic oil.
>I use a mixture of Avgas and motor spirit in my EA81 and no bothers.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=78598#78598
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
Microsoft Office Live
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clem Nichols" <cnichols(at)scrtc.com> |
Peter:
Did you use any type of lead scavinger?
Clem Nichols
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Graichen" <n10pg(at)neo.rr.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 8:48 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: EA-81 fuel
>
> I have used nothing but 100LL av-fuel in over 1000 hrs of operation in my
> NSI EA-81 Subaru without any problems.
> Peter Graichen
> http:/home.neo.rr.com/n10pg/kitfox.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Liles <wliles(at)bayou.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Failure Point |
Avid's, at least from the B model on, use one large size rod end on the
rear strut of the left wing to allow trimming. No other rod ends are
used in the wing or tail struts. Bolts in shear take the loads. Kitfox
had some problems with rod ends failing in tail struts and finally went
to beefier rod ends or simple struts for the tail. Using straight
struts in the Avid left little room for error but resulted in a stronger
wing and tail.
Jerry Liles
Rex Shaw wrote:
> Where did it fail ?
> The carry throguh tube would be one of the weakest links.
> Rod ends would be the next weakest link I think. If you look at the
> Avids
> they do not use rod ends.
> Dave
>
> Dave,
> I'm only going on memory here so please no one take it for
> gospel but I seem to remember the weakest link is the rod end but also
> here in Australia anyway we have Skyfox's that are rough copies of
> Kitfox's. These are apparently failing at the carry through tube and
> there is an AD out for that. I understand they have a weaker tube,
> maybe wall thickness not sure !
> Also took my interest to read the Avid does not use rod ends. What
> do they do ? I assume just a bolt ! Is it in shear ?
> I think that loading the wing to failure point is on a video copied
> by Grant Fluent on this list. I guess anyone that wants a copy could
> first check with Grant that this is on the Video then buy a copy from
> him. I remember his price was extremely reasonable and there was a lot
> of interesting stuff on the DVD copy like loops and rolls in a Kitfox.
>
> Rex.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
I think I know what a lead scavenger is but how does it work.....
Physically or chemically???
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Clem Nichols
> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 3:12 PM
> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: EA-81 fuel
>
>
>
> Peter:
>
> Did you use any type of lead scavinger?
>
> Clem Nichols
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Graichen" <n10pg(at)neo.rr.com>
> To: "Kitfox List"
> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 8:48 AM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: EA-81 fuel
>
>
>
> >
> > I have used nothing but 100LL av-fuel in over 1000 hrs of
> operation in my
> > NSI EA-81 Subaru without any problems.
> > Peter Graichen
> > http:/home.neo.rr.com/n10pg/kitfox.htm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Failure Point |
Jerry,
Interesting.
I still have the 3/16 rod ends on the foreward horizontal stab strut and it
is part of my preflight check.
Regarding stronger wings. I wonder if this is a plus, as the Kifox design
with more "room for error" is a proven design as there have been no
structural failures. If after about 15 years of uneventful use, would there
be a reason to change the design?
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles(at)bayou.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
> Avid's, at least from the B model on, use one large size rod end on the
> rear strut of the left wing to allow trimming. No other rod ends are used
> in the wing or tail struts. Bolts in shear take the loads. Kitfox had
> some problems with rod ends failing in tail struts and finally went to
> beefier rod ends or simple struts for the tail. Using straight struts in
> the Avid left little room for error but resulted in a stronger wing and
> tail.
> Jerry Liles
>
> Rex Shaw wrote:
>
>> Where did it fail ?
>> The carry throguh tube would be one of the weakest links.
>> Rod ends would be the next weakest link I think. If you look at the
>> Avids
>> they do not use rod ends.
>> Dave
>> Dave,
>> I'm only going on memory here so please no one take it for
>> gospel but I seem to remember the weakest link is the rod end but also
>> here in Australia anyway we have Skyfox's that are rough copies of
>> Kitfox's. These are apparently failing at the carry through tube and
>> there is an AD out for that. I understand they have a weaker tube, maybe
>> wall thickness not sure !
>> Also took my interest to read the Avid does not use rod ends. What do
>> they do ? I assume just a bolt ! Is it in shear ?
>> I think that loading the wing to failure point is on a video copied by
>> Grant Fluent on this list. I guess anyone that wants a copy could first
>> check with Grant that this is on the Video then buy a copy from him. I
>> remember his price was extremely reasonable and there was a lot of
>> interesting stuff on the DVD copy like loops and rolls in a Kitfox.
>>
>> Rex.
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Failure Point |
Lowell,
I agree on the horiz stab rod ends being ok. I think alot of the problem
might have been from the pilot pulling on it rather than the grab handle ?
As far as the wings, I agree they seem strong but the idea for 2 rod ends
on the strut if probably to make up for builing errors if any as well as
adjustment. . I have not heard of them coming apart but I have broken them
on other applications. They are tiny compared to GA aircraft. That being
said, has ther ever been an in flight breakup of a Kitfox ?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
> Jerry,
>
> Interesting.
>
> I still have the 3/16 rod ends on the foreward horizontal stab strut and
> it is part of my preflight check.
>
> Regarding stronger wings. I wonder if this is a plus, as the Kifox design
> with more "room for error" is a proven design as there have been no
> structural failures. If after about 15 years of uneventful use, would
> there be a reason to change the design?
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles(at)bayou.com>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
>
>>
>> Avid's, at least from the B model on, use one large size rod end on the
>> rear strut of the left wing to allow trimming. No other rod ends are used
>> in the wing or tail struts. Bolts in shear take the loads. Kitfox had
>> some problems with rod ends failing in tail struts and finally went to
>> beefier rod ends or simple struts for the tail. Using straight struts in
>> the Avid left little room for error but resulted in a stronger wing and
>> tail.
>> Jerry Liles
>>
>> Rex Shaw wrote:
>>
>>> Where did it fail ?
>>> The carry throguh tube would be one of the weakest links.
>>> Rod ends would be the next weakest link I think. If you look at the
>>> Avids
>>> they do not use rod ends.
>>> Dave
>>> Dave,
>>> I'm only going on memory here so please no one take it for
>>> gospel but I seem to remember the weakest link is the rod end but also
>>> here in Australia anyway we have Skyfox's that are rough copies of
>>> Kitfox's. These are apparently failing at the carry through tube and
>>> there is an AD out for that. I understand they have a weaker tube, maybe
>>> wall thickness not sure !
>>> Also took my interest to read the Avid does not use rod ends. What do
>>> they do ? I assume just a bolt ! Is it in shear ?
>>> I think that loading the wing to failure point is on a video copied by
>>> Grant Fluent on this list. I guess anyone that wants a copy could first
>>> check with Grant that this is on the Video then buy a copy from him. I
>>> remember his price was extremely reasonable and there was a lot of
>>> interesting stuff on the DVD copy like loops and rolls in a Kitfox.
>>>
>>> Rex.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Failure Point |
| From: | Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt(at)jps.net> |
I bought the 1/4" threaded stud inserts to fit those forward hort. stab
struts, and welded them in, fitted the 1/4" rod ends and have had no
problems in over 200 hrs of flight, and like Lowell, check them prior
to, and after each day of flying.
Lynn
On Saturday, December 2, 2006, at 05:33 PM, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>
> Jerry,
>
> Interesting.
>
> I still have the 3/16 rod ends on the foreward horizontal stab strut
> and it is part of my preflight check.
>
> Regarding stronger wings. I wonder if this is a plus, as the Kifox
> design with more "room for error" is a proven design as there have
> been no structural failures. If after about 15 years of uneventful
> use, would there be a reason to change the design?
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles(at)bayou.com>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
>
>>
>> Avid's, at least from the B model on, use one large size rod end on
>> the rear strut of the left wing to allow trimming. No other rod ends
>> are used in the wing or tail struts. Bolts in shear take the loads.
>> Kitfox had some problems with rod ends failing in tail struts and
>> finally went to beefier rod ends or simple struts for the tail.
>> Using straight struts in the Avid left little room for error but
>> resulted in a stronger wing and tail.
>> Jerry Liles
>>
>> Rex Shaw wrote:
>>
>>> Where did it fail ?
>>> The carry throguh tube would be one of the weakest links.
>>> Rod ends would be the next weakest link I think. If you look at the
>>> Avids
>>> they do not use rod ends.
>>> Dave
>>> Dave,
>>> I'm only going on memory here so please no one take it
>>> for gospel but I seem to remember the weakest link is the rod end
>>> but also here in Australia anyway we have Skyfox's that are rough
>>> copies of Kitfox's. These are apparently failing at the carry
>>> through tube and there is an AD out for that. I understand they have
>>> a weaker tube, maybe wall thickness not sure !
>>> Also took my interest to read the Avid does not use rod ends. What
>>> do they do ? I assume just a bolt ! Is it in shear ?
>>> I think that loading the wing to failure point is on a video
>>> copied by Grant Fluent on this list. I guess anyone that wants a
>>> copy could first check with Grant that this is on the Video then buy
>>> a copy from him. I remember his price was extremely reasonable and
>>> there was a lot of interesting stuff on the DVD copy like loops and
>>> rolls in a Kitfox.
>>> Rex.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PWilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Failure Point |
Yes there have been failure on teh horizontal strut. Don't know how
many but the archives had the info.
The construction Skystar used was a #10x32 socket head cap screw
welded in the end of the 3/8"x0.020" tube. Not an aircraft method but
a short cut to avoid buying the correct AN490(?) tube end
fitting. As shocking as it is surprisingly only a few failed.
probably due to excess heat on the hardened cap screw.
BTW, there is no way improper handling could break a #10x30 cap screw
-For sure.
Most of us that did the mod to the AN part used 1/4x28 AN part and
plug welded it as well as seam welded it to the end of the tube. The
cost to do the upgrade is minimal - just the AN tube end and the
appropriate rod end. My welder charged me $10 after I prepped the
parts. Shortening the rod is required to get the same length as before.
Its very wise to keep checking for the failure.
Regards, Paul
===============
At 02:33 PM 12/2/2006, you wrote:
>
>Jerry,
>
>Interesting.
>
>I still have the 3/16 rod ends on the foreward horizontal stab strut
>and it is part of my preflight check.
>
>Regarding stronger wings. I wonder if this is a plus, as the Kifox
>design with more "room for error" is a proven design as there have
>been no structural failures. If after about 15 years of uneventful
>use, would there be a reason to change the design?
>
>Lowell
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles(at)bayou.com>
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:25 AM
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
>
>>
>>Avid's, at least from the B model on, use one large size rod end on
>>the rear strut of the left wing to allow trimming. No other rod
>>ends are used in the wing or tail struts. Bolts in shear take the
>>loads. Kitfox had some problems with rod ends failing in tail
>>struts and finally went to beefier rod ends or simple struts for
>>the tail. Using straight struts in the Avid left little room for
>>error but resulted in a stronger wing and tail.
>>Jerry Liles
>>
>>Rex Shaw wrote:
>>
>>>Where did it fail ?
>>>The carry throguh tube would be one of the weakest links.
>>>Rod ends would be the next weakest link I think. If you look at the Avids
>>>they do not use rod ends.
>>> Dave
>>> Dave,
>>> I'm only going on memory here so please no one take
>>> it for gospel but I seem to remember the weakest link is the rod
>>> end but also here in Australia anyway we have Skyfox's that are
>>> rough copies of Kitfox's. These are apparently failing at the
>>> carry through tube and there is an AD out for that. I understand
>>> they have a weaker tube, maybe wall thickness not sure !
>>> Also took my interest to read the Avid does not use rod ends.
>>> What do they do ? I assume just a bolt ! Is it in shear ?
>>> I think that loading the wing to failure point is on a video
>>> copied by Grant Fluent on this list. I guess anyone that wants a
>>> copy could first check with Grant that this is on the Video then
>>> buy a copy from him. I remember his price was extremely
>>> reasonable and there was a lot of interesting stuff on the DVD
>>> copy like loops and rolls in a Kitfox.
>>>Rex.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Failure Point |
| From: | "jimcarriere" <jimcarriere(at)yahoo.com> |
My 7 uses 3/8" rod ends at each end of the wing struts. That is, the long threaded
part of the rod is 3/8x24 (UNF), that attaches to the strut. The ball has
a 1/4" hole, a 1/4" bolt attaches that to a bracket (and the bracket is attached
to the wing spar).
Those rod ends are pretty substantial...
Jim in NW FL
Series 7 in progress
--------
Jim in NW FL
Kitfox Series 7 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=78733#78733
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Smythe" <dosmythe(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Failure Point |
Just a thought, once the horizontal stabilizers are adjusted for proper
flight why not replace the horizontal struts with "fixed" units. That is,
replace with tubing with crimped ends and no rod ends to break.
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
> I bought the 1/4" threaded stud inserts to fit those forward hort. stab
> struts, and welded them in, fitted the 1/4" rod ends and have had no
> problems in over 200 hrs of flight, and like Lowell, check them prior to,
> and after each day of flying.
>
> Lynn
> On Saturday, December 2, 2006, at 05:33 PM, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>
>>
>> Jerry,
>>
>> Interesting.
>>
>> I still have the 3/16 rod ends on the foreward horizontal stab strut and
>> it is part of my preflight check.
>>
>> Regarding stronger wings. I wonder if this is a plus, as the Kifox
>> design with more "room for error" is a proven design as there have been
>> no structural failures. If after about 15 years of uneventful use, would
>> there be a reason to change the design?
>>
>> Lowell
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles(at)bayou.com>
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:25 AM
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Avid's, at least from the B model on, use one large size rod end on the
>>> rear strut of the left wing to allow trimming. No other rod ends are
>>> used in the wing or tail struts. Bolts in shear take the loads. Kitfox
>>> had some problems with rod ends failing in tail struts and finally went
>>> to beefier rod ends or simple struts for the tail. Using straight
>>> struts in the Avid left little room for error but resulted in a stronger
>>> wing and tail.
>>> Jerry Liles
>>>
>>> Rex Shaw wrote:
>>>
>>>> Where did it fail ?
>>>> The carry throguh tube would be one of the weakest links.
>>>> Rod ends would be the next weakest link I think. If you look at the
>>>> Avids
>>>> they do not use rod ends.
>>>> Dave
>>>> Dave,
>>>> I'm only going on memory here so please no one take it for
>>>> gospel but I seem to remember the weakest link is the rod end but also
>>>> here in Australia anyway we have Skyfox's that are rough copies of
>>>> Kitfox's. These are apparently failing at the carry through tube and
>>>> there is an AD out for that. I understand they have a weaker tube,
>>>> maybe wall thickness not sure !
>>>> Also took my interest to read the Avid does not use rod ends. What do
>>>> they do ? I assume just a bolt ! Is it in shear ?
>>>> I think that loading the wing to failure point is on a video copied
>>>> by Grant Fluent on this list. I guess anyone that wants a copy could
>>>> first check with Grant that this is on the Video then buy a copy from
>>>> him. I remember his price was extremely reasonable and there was a lot
>>>> of interesting stuff on the DVD copy like loops and rolls in a Kitfox.
>>>> Rex.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Failure Point |
Don, You would have to get the hole drilled perfect in that case.
I drop the front of my horiz. stab when floats go on and have to adjust a
few timesto get hands free flights.
Same thing going back to wheels in fall. Ski season approaching soon. :)
BTW Don I saw your Fox on Barnstormers. Looks great !! Surprising how
these Kitfox sell so cheap and at a fraction of a new Kit. Yours only has
150 hours? Good deal for some one.
If anyone looking fora 582 Amphib fox there is one there as well on Aerocet
floats for 25k . Flaots worth about 8k alone. Great deal
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe(at)cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
> Just a thought, once the horizontal stabilizers are adjusted for proper
> flight why not replace the horizontal struts with "fixed" units. That
> is, replace with tubing with crimped ends and no rod ends to break.
>
> Don Smythe
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
>
>>
>> I bought the 1/4" threaded stud inserts to fit those forward hort. stab
>> struts, and welded them in, fitted the 1/4" rod ends and have had no
>> problems in over 200 hrs of flight, and like Lowell, check them prior to,
>> and after each day of flying.
>>
>> Lynn
>> On Saturday, December 2, 2006, at 05:33 PM, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Jerry,
>>>
>>> Interesting.
>>>
>>> I still have the 3/16 rod ends on the foreward horizontal stab strut and
>>> it is part of my preflight check.
>>>
>>> Regarding stronger wings. I wonder if this is a plus, as the Kifox
>>> design with more "room for error" is a proven design as there have been
>>> no structural failures. If after about 15 years of uneventful use,
>>> would there be a reason to change the design?
>>>
>>> Lowell
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles(at)bayou.com>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:25 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Avid's, at least from the B model on, use one large size rod end on the
>>>> rear strut of the left wing to allow trimming. No other rod ends are
>>>> used in the wing or tail struts. Bolts in shear take the loads.
>>>> Kitfox had some problems with rod ends failing in tail struts and
>>>> finally went to beefier rod ends or simple struts for the tail. Using
>>>> straight struts in the Avid left little room for error but resulted in
>>>> a stronger wing and tail.
>>>> Jerry Liles
>>>>
>>>> Rex Shaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Where did it fail ?
>>>>> The carry throguh tube would be one of the weakest links.
>>>>> Rod ends would be the next weakest link I think. If you look at the
>>>>> Avids
>>>>> they do not use rod ends.
>>>>> Dave
>>>>> Dave,
>>>>> I'm only going on memory here so please no one take it for
>>>>> gospel but I seem to remember the weakest link is the rod end but also
>>>>> here in Australia anyway we have Skyfox's that are rough copies of
>>>>> Kitfox's. These are apparently failing at the carry through tube and
>>>>> there is an AD out for that. I understand they have a weaker tube,
>>>>> maybe wall thickness not sure !
>>>>> Also took my interest to read the Avid does not use rod ends. What
>>>>> do they do ? I assume just a bolt ! Is it in shear ?
>>>>> I think that loading the wing to failure point is on a video copied
>>>>> by Grant Fluent on this list. I guess anyone that wants a copy could
>>>>> first check with Grant that this is on the Video then buy a copy from
>>>>> him. I remember his price was extremely reasonable and there was a lot
>>>>> of interesting stuff on the DVD copy like loops and rolls in a Kitfox.
>>>>> Rex.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Failure Point |
Never!
And the horizontal strut faillures were discovered post flight.
I dare say that if we went through the design we could find lots of stuff
that just doesn't "look" right. I think of the Rans with their construction
methods, a take off from the ultralight design. Lots of brackets and bolts
holding things together and their new stamped aluminum wing ribs - flimsy
compared to the Kitfox design. Maybe the Kitfox is overdesigned and heavy
as a reslult, but I like the history. I have been in some pretty heavy
stuff, once in a flight of six flying over the Sawtooth Mountains of Idaho
on our way to Smiley Creek - elev 7200 ft. - we did a quick 180 because we
got tired of our heads banging on the skylight. Once in the middle of Nevada
one of the guys inadvertently flew through a dust devil - no visible dust -
and had a real ride, but other than having his headset knocked off his head
and a good case of the shakes, no harm done.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
> Lowell,
>
> I agree on the horiz stab rod ends being ok. I think alot of the
> problem might have been from the pilot pulling on it rather than the grab
> handle ?
>
> As far as the wings, I agree they seem strong but the idea for 2 rod ends
> on the strut if probably to make up for builing errors if any as well as
> adjustment. . I have not heard of them coming apart but I have broken
> them on other applications. They are tiny compared to GA aircraft. That
> being said, has ther ever been an in flight breakup of a Kitfox ?
>
>
> Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
>
>>
>> Jerry,
>>
>> Interesting.
>>
>> I still have the 3/16 rod ends on the foreward horizontal stab strut and
>> it is part of my preflight check.
>>
>> Regarding stronger wings. I wonder if this is a plus, as the Kifox
>> design with more "room for error" is a proven design as there have been
>> no structural failures. If after about 15 years of uneventful use, would
>> there be a reason to change the design?
>>
>> Lowell
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles(at)bayou.com>
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:25 AM
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Avid's, at least from the B model on, use one large size rod end on the
>>> rear strut of the left wing to allow trimming. No other rod ends are
>>> used in the wing or tail struts. Bolts in shear take the loads. Kitfox
>>> had some problems with rod ends failing in tail struts and finally went
>>> to beefier rod ends or simple struts for the tail. Using straight
>>> struts in the Avid left little room for error but resulted in a stronger
>>> wing and tail.
>>> Jerry Liles
>>>
>>> Rex Shaw wrote:
>>>
>>>> Where did it fail ?
>>>> The carry throguh tube would be one of the weakest links.
>>>> Rod ends would be the next weakest link I think. If you look at the
>>>> Avids
>>>> they do not use rod ends.
>>>> Dave
>>>> Dave,
>>>> I'm only going on memory here so please no one take it for
>>>> gospel but I seem to remember the weakest link is the rod end but also
>>>> here in Australia anyway we have Skyfox's that are rough copies of
>>>> Kitfox's. These are apparently failing at the carry through tube and
>>>> there is an AD out for that. I understand they have a weaker tube,
>>>> maybe wall thickness not sure !
>>>> Also took my interest to read the Avid does not use rod ends. What do
>>>> they do ? I assume just a bolt ! Is it in shear ?
>>>> I think that loading the wing to failure point is on a video copied
>>>> by Grant Fluent on this list. I guess anyone that wants a copy could
>>>> first check with Grant that this is on the Video then buy a copy from
>>>> him. I remember his price was extremely reasonable and there was a lot
>>>> of interesting stuff on the DVD copy like loops and rolls in a Kitfox.
>>>>
>>>> Rex.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Failure Point |
Good to know Lowell. I too like the design of the Kitfox and have found it
a easy adaptable airplane to fly.
What happened on the horiz stab issue ? Were they broken from tugging on
them ?
As far as heavy , I think that any plane can get heavy in a hurry from all
the add on as well as engine choices.
In my opinion the Kitfox is one of the best on the market if not the best.
Not to mention best bang for the buck on the used market. I am lost to
understand whatd folks like about Challenger, Beavers and Chinnook planes
but they are very popular and some really hold the mkt value for some reason
that I will never understand.
I think if a guy bought up 1 mil $ worth of used Kitfoxes that he could see
at least 50% return over the next few years and if not he would have a nice
collection of toys.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
> Never!
>
> And the horizontal strut faillures were discovered post flight.
>
> I dare say that if we went through the design we could find lots of stuff
> that just doesn't "look" right. I think of the Rans with their
> construction methods, a take off from the ultralight design. Lots of
> brackets and bolts holding things together and their new stamped aluminum
> wing ribs - flimsy compared to the Kitfox design. Maybe the Kitfox is
> overdesigned and heavy as a reslult, but I like the history. I have been
> in some pretty heavy stuff, once in a flight of six flying over the
> Sawtooth Mountains of Idaho on our way to Smiley Creek - elev 7200 ft. -
> we did a quick 180 because we got tired of our heads banging on the
> skylight. Once in the middle of Nevada one of the guys inadvertently flew
> through a dust devil - no visible dust - and had a real ride, but other
> than having his headset knocked off his head and a good case of the
> shakes, no harm done.
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
>
>>
>> Lowell,
>>
>> I agree on the horiz stab rod ends being ok. I think alot of the
>> problem might have been from the pilot pulling on it rather than the
>> grab handle ?
>>
>> As far as the wings, I agree they seem strong but the idea for 2 rod
>> ends on the strut if probably to make up for builing errors if any as
>> well as adjustment. . I have not heard of them coming apart but I have
>> broken them on other applications. They are tiny compared to GA
>> aircraft. That being said, has ther ever been an in flight breakup of a
>> Kitfox ?
>>
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net>
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Jerry,
>>>
>>> Interesting.
>>>
>>> I still have the 3/16 rod ends on the foreward horizontal stab strut and
>>> it is part of my preflight check.
>>>
>>> Regarding stronger wings. I wonder if this is a plus, as the Kifox
>>> design with more "room for error" is a proven design as there have been
>>> no structural failures. If after about 15 years of uneventful use,
>>> would there be a reason to change the design?
>>>
>>> Lowell
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles(at)bayou.com>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:25 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Avid's, at least from the B model on, use one large size rod end on the
>>>> rear strut of the left wing to allow trimming. No other rod ends are
>>>> used in the wing or tail struts. Bolts in shear take the loads.
>>>> Kitfox had some problems with rod ends failing in tail struts and
>>>> finally went to beefier rod ends or simple struts for the tail. Using
>>>> straight struts in the Avid left little room for error but resulted in
>>>> a stronger wing and tail.
>>>> Jerry Liles
>>>>
>>>> Rex Shaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Where did it fail ?
>>>>> The carry throguh tube would be one of the weakest links.
>>>>> Rod ends would be the next weakest link I think. If you look at the
>>>>> Avids
>>>>> they do not use rod ends.
>>>>> Dave
>>>>> Dave,
>>>>> I'm only going on memory here so please no one take it for
>>>>> gospel but I seem to remember the weakest link is the rod end but also
>>>>> here in Australia anyway we have Skyfox's that are rough copies of
>>>>> Kitfox's. These are apparently failing at the carry through tube and
>>>>> there is an AD out for that. I understand they have a weaker tube,
>>>>> maybe wall thickness not sure !
>>>>> Also took my interest to read the Avid does not use rod ends. What
>>>>> do they do ? I assume just a bolt ! Is it in shear ?
>>>>> I think that loading the wing to failure point is on a video copied
>>>>> by Grant Fluent on this list. I guess anyone that wants a copy could
>>>>> first check with Grant that this is on the Video then buy a copy from
>>>>> him. I remember his price was extremely reasonable and there was a lot
>>>>> of interesting stuff on the DVD copy like loops and rolls in a Kitfox.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rex.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Liles <wliles(at)bayou.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Failure Point |
While it never caused a crash that I'm aware of there were just too many
incidents of failure of the horizontal stab rod ends to call it ok. I
recall one incident a few years ago related by a member of the Kitfox
list of having to wrestle his airplane back home as it suddenly wanted
to descend and turn and he could not figure out why until someone on the
list suggested he inspect the horizontal stab. If the forces had been a
bit greater the stab might have twisted or fluttered and made the plane
uncontrollable or stressed the rear rod end to failure. That might have
hurt. As for the rod ends on the wings they seem to be trouble free and
adequately strong and make it easier to correct any minor
misalignments, certainly more so than on an Avid, though I had no
problem with mine.
dave wrote:
>
> Lowell,
>
> I agree on the horiz stab rod ends being ok. I think alot of the
> problem might have been from the pilot pulling on it rather than the
> grab handle ?
>
> As far as the wings, I agree they seem strong but the idea for 2 rod
> ends on the strut if probably to make up for builing errors if any as
> well as adjustment. . I have not heard of them coming apart but I
> have broken them on other applications. They are tiny compared to GA
> aircraft. That being said, has ther ever been an in flight breakup of
> a Kitfox ?
>
>
> Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
>
>>
>> Jerry,
>>
>> Interesting.
>>
>> I still have the 3/16 rod ends on the foreward horizontal stab strut
>> and it is part of my preflight check.
>>
>> Regarding stronger wings. I wonder if this is a plus, as the Kifox
>> design with more "room for error" is a proven design as there have
>> been no structural failures. If after about 15 years of uneventful
>> use, would there be a reason to change the design?
>>
>> Lowell
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles(at)bayou.com>
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:25 AM
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Avid's, at least from the B model on, use one large size rod end on
>>> the rear strut of the left wing to allow trimming. No other rod ends
>>> are used in the wing or tail struts. Bolts in shear take the
>>> loads. Kitfox had some problems with rod ends failing in tail
>>> struts and finally went to beefier rod ends or simple struts for the
>>> tail. Using straight struts in the Avid left little room for error
>>> but resulted in a stronger wing and tail.
>>> Jerry Liles
>>>
>>> Rex Shaw wrote:
>>>
>>>> Where did it fail ?
>>>> The carry throguh tube would be one of the weakest links.
>>>> Rod ends would be the next weakest link I think. If you look at
>>>> the Avids
>>>> they do not use rod ends.
>>>> Dave
>>>> Dave,
>>>> I'm only going on memory here so please no one take it
>>>> for gospel but I seem to remember the weakest link is the rod end
>>>> but also here in Australia anyway we have Skyfox's that are rough
>>>> copies of Kitfox's. These are apparently failing at the carry
>>>> through tube and there is an AD out for that. I understand they
>>>> have a weaker tube, maybe wall thickness not sure !
>>>> Also took my interest to read the Avid does not use rod ends.
>>>> What do they do ? I assume just a bolt ! Is it in shear ?
>>>> I think that loading the wing to failure point is on a video
>>>> copied by Grant Fluent on this list. I guess anyone that wants a
>>>> copy could first check with Grant that this is on the Video then
>>>> buy a copy from him. I remember his price was extremely reasonable
>>>> and there was a lot of interesting stuff on the DVD copy like loops
>>>> and rolls in a Kitfox.
>>>>
>>>> Rex.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
Dave:
Not hard to see the interest in the Challenger and its clones. Lots of
unobstructed view and a very light engine. Capable on floats. Very fast to
build. Just watch their video on low and slow flying.... You can do the
same in the 'Fox but they won't tell you that. The easily removable doors
are great for aerial photography.
I looked at the Challenger quite closely. What I liked was above. What I
didn't like was the blind riveted cluster fish plate joints. I don't think
they even used Cherry max rivets on them. (I could be wrong as those joints
are made at the factory) I feel safer with 4130 in the frame than extruded
aluminium where I can easily see it. I also didn't like the idea of being
stuck with tricycle only landing gear. In the kitfox there is still the
tricycle option.
The real selling point for me was the wing folding feature of the Kitfox.
I can unfold mine in less time than it takes to tell you how to do it. The
plane goes back into my garage after every flight. I fly floats so I like
the idea of the bologna slicer being out front as far away from the spray as
possible. I also like the idea of a 4130 welded frame! Side by side
seating to me is another plus but I also liked flying the Super Cub that has
tandem seating. I find pre-flight and post-flight inspections are easy to
do on the Kitfox as the whole front cowl is quickly removed and access even
to the back of the instrument panel is easy.
Weather here is rarely hot so I installed a gas shock on my door to hold it
up during flight.....effect is fabulas. Landing on floats with the door
open is at this stage beyond my ability to adequately describe. That one
you will have to try for your self. It's a bit like your first solo.
The end result is personal preference. Both are good planes (the Challenger
by reputation). I think the Kitfox and Avid (which one is the clone?) are
stronger and better in the harsh environment I live. If there is a fault
with the Kitfox it has to be I get nervous when someone who has never been
around a plane before offers me help launching or retrieving the plane. It
would be much worse with the Challenger.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of dave
> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 10:54 PM
> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
>
>
> Good to know Lowell. I too like the design of the Kitfox and
> have found it
> a easy adaptable airplane to fly.
> What happened on the horiz stab issue ? Were they broken
> from tugging on
> them ?
>
> As far as heavy , I think that any plane can get heavy in a
> hurry from all
> the add on as well as engine choices.
>
> In my opinion the Kitfox is one of the best on the market if
> not the best.
> Not to mention best bang for the buck on the used market. I
> am lost to
> understand whatd folks like about Challenger, Beavers and
> Chinnook planes
> but they are very popular and some really hold the mkt value
> for some reason
> that I will never understand.
>
> I think if a guy bought up 1 mil $ worth of used Kitfoxes
> that he could see
> at least 50% return over the next few years and if not he
> would have a nice
> collection of toys.
>
> Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ron schick" <roncarolnikko(at)hotmail.com> |
My friends I fear the worst for my neighbor and friend. At about 4:00 my
Kitfox and I were in loose formation with N914C and now at 8:43 the hanger
is empty, the trucks are still there, and the police have been to his house.
Hug your wife, kids or whatever and remember there is no reset button. A
picture of a non Kitfox friend. Ron NB Ore (Coos Bay)
_________________________________________________________________
Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: type of fuel |
| From: | "avtar412" <janderson412(at)hotmail.com> |
Synthetic oil will not combine with the TEL and lead will build up as lead sludge.
Semi-synthetic is a good compromise.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=78784#78784
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JC Propellerdesign" <propellerdesign(at)tele2.se> |
| Subject: | Re: Subaru EA-81 |
Here is a lot interesting information about cooling,
http://www.rotaryeng.net/how-to-cool12.html
Also attached is an excel file for cooling estimate.
Jan Carlsson
www.jcpropellerdesign.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Kathy & Dick Toomey
To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 11:39 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Subaru EA-81
I am curious to what size radiators are being used (Square inches)
with success for proper cooling on a Subaru EA-81 engine with
carburetors. Also is an oil cooler necessary?
Thanks
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Smythe" <dosmythe(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Failure Point |
I have this mod on my list of things to do. Just remove one rod (with rod
end) at a time. pre-drill the fuselage end and attach new rod. Put a tick
mark down through the hole in the stab where you want the new rod drilled.
I think that should be as close as you need it.
Don Smythe.
-- Original Message -----
From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
> Don, You would have to get the hole drilled perfect in that case.
>
> I drop the front of my horiz. stab when floats go on and have to adjust a
> few timesto get hands free flights.
> Same thing going back to wheels in fall. Ski season approaching soon. :)
>
> BTW Don I saw your Fox on Barnstormers. Looks great !! Surprising how
> these Kitfox sell so cheap and at a fraction of a new Kit. Yours only has
> 150 hours? Good deal for some one.
> If anyone looking fora 582 Amphib fox there is one there as well on
> Aerocet floats for 25k . Flaots worth about 8k alone. Great deal
>
>
> Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe(at)cox.net>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 7:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
>
>>
>> Just a thought, once the horizontal stabilizers are adjusted for proper
>> flight why not replace the horizontal struts with "fixed" units. That
>> is, replace with tubing with crimped ends and no rod ends to break.
>>
>> Don Smythe
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:59 PM
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I bought the 1/4" threaded stud inserts to fit those forward hort. stab
>>> struts, and welded them in, fitted the 1/4" rod ends and have had no
>>> problems in over 200 hrs of flight, and like Lowell, check them prior
>>> to, and after each day of flying.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>> On Saturday, December 2, 2006, at 05:33 PM, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jerry,
>>>>
>>>> Interesting.
>>>>
>>>> I still have the 3/16 rod ends on the foreward horizontal stab strut
>>>> and it is part of my preflight check.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding stronger wings. I wonder if this is a plus, as the Kifox
>>>> design with more "room for error" is a proven design as there have been
>>>> no structural failures. If after about 15 years of uneventful use,
>>>> would there be a reason to change the design?
>>>>
>>>> Lowell
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles(at)bayou.com>
>>>> To:
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:25 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Avid's, at least from the B model on, use one large size rod end on
>>>>> the rear strut of the left wing to allow trimming. No other rod ends
>>>>> are used in the wing or tail struts. Bolts in shear take the loads.
>>>>> Kitfox had some problems with rod ends failing in tail struts and
>>>>> finally went to beefier rod ends or simple struts for the tail. Using
>>>>> straight struts in the Avid left little room for error but resulted in
>>>>> a stronger wing and tail.
>>>>> Jerry Liles
>>>>>
>>>>> Rex Shaw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Where did it fail ?
>>>>>> The carry throguh tube would be one of the weakest links.
>>>>>> Rod ends would be the next weakest link I think. If you look at the
>>>>>> Avids
>>>>>> they do not use rod ends.
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>> Dave,
>>>>>> I'm only going on memory here so please no one take it
>>>>>> for gospel but I seem to remember the weakest link is the rod end but
>>>>>> also here in Australia anyway we have Skyfox's that are rough copies
>>>>>> of Kitfox's. These are apparently failing at the carry through tube
>>>>>> and there is an AD out for that. I understand they have a weaker
>>>>>> tube, maybe wall thickness not sure !
>>>>>> Also took my interest to read the Avid does not use rod ends. What
>>>>>> do they do ? I assume just a bolt ! Is it in shear ?
>>>>>> I think that loading the wing to failure point is on a video copied
>>>>>> by Grant Fluent on this list. I guess anyone that wants a copy could
>>>>>> first check with Grant that this is on the Video then buy a copy from
>>>>>> him. I remember his price was extremely reasonable and there was a
>>>>>> lot of interesting stuff on the DVD copy like loops and rolls in a
>>>>>> Kitfox.
>>>>>> Rex.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Failure Point |
Don, I would like it keep the option for adjustment and the Rod ends seem to
serve well.
Would your modification be considered a airframe modification?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
> I have this mod on my list of things to do. Just remove one rod (with rod
> end) at a time. pre-drill the fuselage end and attach new rod. Put a
> tick mark down through the hole in the stab where you want the new rod
> drilled. I think that should be as close as you need it.
>
> Don Smythe.
>
> -- Original Message -----
> From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 8:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
>
>>
>> Don, You would have to get the hole drilled perfect in that case.
>>
>> I drop the front of my horiz. stab when floats go on and have to adjust
>> a few timesto get hands free flights.
>> Same thing going back to wheels in fall. Ski season approaching soon.
>> :)
>>
>> BTW Don I saw your Fox on Barnstormers. Looks great !! Surprising how
>> these Kitfox sell so cheap and at a fraction of a new Kit. Yours only
>> has 150 hours? Good deal for some one.
>> If anyone looking fora 582 Amphib fox there is one there as well on
>> Aerocet floats for 25k . Flaots worth about 8k alone. Great deal
>>
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe(at)cox.net>
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 7:59 PM
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Just a thought, once the horizontal stabilizers are adjusted for proper
>>> flight why not replace the horizontal struts with "fixed" units. That
>>> is, replace with tubing with crimped ends and no rod ends to break.
>>>
>>> Don Smythe
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:59 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I bought the 1/4" threaded stud inserts to fit those forward hort. stab
>>>> struts, and welded them in, fitted the 1/4" rod ends and have had no
>>>> problems in over 200 hrs of flight, and like Lowell, check them prior
>>>> to, and after each day of flying.
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>>> On Saturday, December 2, 2006, at 05:33 PM, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jerry,
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> I still have the 3/16 rod ends on the foreward horizontal stab strut
>>>>> and it is part of my preflight check.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding stronger wings. I wonder if this is a plus, as the Kifox
>>>>> design with more "room for error" is a proven design as there have
>>>>> been no structural failures. If after about 15 years of uneventful
>>>>> use, would there be a reason to change the design?
>>>>>
>>>>> Lowell
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles(at)bayou.com>
>>>>> To:
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:25 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Avid's, at least from the B model on, use one large size rod end on
>>>>>> the rear strut of the left wing to allow trimming. No other rod ends
>>>>>> are used in the wing or tail struts. Bolts in shear take the loads.
>>>>>> Kitfox had some problems with rod ends failing in tail struts and
>>>>>> finally went to beefier rod ends or simple struts for the tail.
>>>>>> Using straight struts in the Avid left little room for error but
>>>>>> resulted in a stronger wing and tail.
>>>>>> Jerry Liles
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rex Shaw wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where did it fail ?
>>>>>>> The carry throguh tube would be one of the weakest links.
>>>>>>> Rod ends would be the next weakest link I think. If you look at the
>>>>>>> Avids
>>>>>>> they do not use rod ends.
>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>> Dave,
>>>>>>> I'm only going on memory here so please no one take it
>>>>>>> for gospel but I seem to remember the weakest link is the rod end
>>>>>>> but also here in Australia anyway we have Skyfox's that are rough
>>>>>>> copies of Kitfox's. These are apparently failing at the carry
>>>>>>> through tube and there is an AD out for that. I understand they have
>>>>>>> a weaker tube, maybe wall thickness not sure !
>>>>>>> Also took my interest to read the Avid does not use rod ends. What
>>>>>>> do they do ? I assume just a bolt ! Is it in shear ?
>>>>>>> I think that loading the wing to failure point is on a video
>>>>>>> copied by Grant Fluent on this list. I guess anyone that wants a
>>>>>>> copy could first check with Grant that this is on the Video then buy
>>>>>>> a copy from him. I remember his price was extremely reasonable and
>>>>>>> there was a lot of interesting stuff on the DVD copy like loops and
>>>>>>> rolls in a Kitfox.
>>>>>>> Rex.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Failure Point rod end - horiz stab. |
Jerry -- I canno see the rod ends breaking from normal use.
I would think that some have used the horiz stab Strut for moving tail
around.
Now if you bend a rodend and more than once or twice, I could see it
breaking at a thread.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles(at)bayou.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
> While it never caused a crash that I'm aware of there were just too many
> incidents of failure of the horizontal stab rod ends to call it ok. I
> recall one incident a few years ago related by a member of the Kitfox list
> of having to wrestle his airplane back home as it suddenly wanted to
> descend and turn and he could not figure out why until someone on the list
> suggested he inspect the horizontal stab. If the forces had been a bit
> greater the stab might have twisted or fluttered and made the plane
> uncontrollable or stressed the rear rod end to failure. That might have
> hurt. As for the rod ends on the wings they seem to be trouble free and
> adequately strong and make it easier to correct any minor misalignments,
> certainly more so than on an Avid, though I had no problem with mine.
>
> dave wrote:
>
>>
>> Lowell,
>>
>> I agree on the horiz stab rod ends being ok. I think alot of the
>> problem might have been from the pilot pulling on it rather than the
>> grab handle ?
>>
>> As far as the wings, I agree they seem strong but the idea for 2 rod
>> ends on the strut if probably to make up for builing errors if any as
>> well as adjustment. . I have not heard of them coming apart but I have
>> broken them on other applications. They are tiny compared to GA
>> aircraft. That being said, has ther ever been an in flight breakup of a
>> Kitfox ?
>>
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net>
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Jerry,
>>>
>>> Interesting.
>>>
>>> I still have the 3/16 rod ends on the foreward horizontal stab strut and
>>> it is part of my preflight check.
>>>
>>> Regarding stronger wings. I wonder if this is a plus, as the Kifox
>>> design with more "room for error" is a proven design as there have been
>>> no structural failures. If after about 15 years of uneventful use,
>>> would there be a reason to change the design?
>>>
>>> Lowell
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles(at)bayou.com>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:25 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Avid's, at least from the B model on, use one large size rod end on the
>>>> rear strut of the left wing to allow trimming. No other rod ends are
>>>> used in the wing or tail struts. Bolts in shear take the loads.
>>>> Kitfox had some problems with rod ends failing in tail struts and
>>>> finally went to beefier rod ends or simple struts for the tail. Using
>>>> straight struts in the Avid left little room for error but resulted in
>>>> a stronger wing and tail.
>>>> Jerry Liles
>>>>
>>>> Rex Shaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Where did it fail ?
>>>>> The carry throguh tube would be one of the weakest links.
>>>>> Rod ends would be the next weakest link I think. If you look at the
>>>>> Avids
>>>>> they do not use rod ends.
>>>>> Dave
>>>>> Dave,
>>>>> I'm only going on memory here so please no one take it for
>>>>> gospel but I seem to remember the weakest link is the rod end but also
>>>>> here in Australia anyway we have Skyfox's that are rough copies of
>>>>> Kitfox's. These are apparently failing at the carry through tube and
>>>>> there is an AD out for that. I understand they have a weaker tube,
>>>>> maybe wall thickness not sure !
>>>>> Also took my interest to read the Avid does not use rod ends. What
>>>>> do they do ? I assume just a bolt ! Is it in shear ?
>>>>> I think that loading the wing to failure point is on a video copied
>>>>> by Grant Fluent on this list. I guess anyone that wants a copy could
>>>>> first check with Grant that this is on the Video then buy a copy from
>>>>> him. I remember his price was extremely reasonable and there was a lot
>>>>> of interesting stuff on the DVD copy like loops and rolls in a Kitfox.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rex.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Smythe" <dosmythe(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Failure Point |
I would think that once they are set to length, they should not ever need
changing. However, I believe you mention changing to floats and this might
require a seasonal change?? If I remember correctly, the rod ends on the
stabs are 3/16" where every other rod end on my Fox is 1/4" or bigger. I
also seem to remember that Fox's sold overseas required the stab rod ends to
be upgraded to 1/4". There has been a couple cases where the rod ends were
found broken after a flight. Regardless whether they broke due to flight or
rough ground handling, I think a good field fix might be in order.
I don't know if this type mod would be considered an airframe mod or not
but probably would. So, that is another question. I'd say, you can do the
mod, log it and forget it??? If you have a case where winter/summer lengths
are different, make two sets. This is probably not a major concern but is
always on my preflight check list to wiggle all four rods. I've had my
plane moved many times by other hanger mates and you never know what they
might do in moving your plane.
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
> Don, I would like it keep the option for adjustment and the Rod ends seem
> to serve well.
> Would your modification be considered a airframe modification?
>
> Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe(at)cox.net>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 7:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
>
>>
>> I have this mod on my list of things to do. Just remove one rod (with
>> rod end) at a time. pre-drill the fuselage end and attach new rod. Put
>> a tick mark down through the hole in the stab where you want the new rod
>> drilled. I think that should be as close as you need it.
>>
>> Don Smythe.
>>
>> -- Original Message -----
>> From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 8:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Don, You would have to get the hole drilled perfect in that case.
>>>
>>> I drop the front of my horiz. stab when floats go on and have to adjust
>>> a few timesto get hands free flights.
>>> Same thing going back to wheels in fall. Ski season approaching soon.
>>> :)
>>>
>>> BTW Don I saw your Fox on Barnstormers. Looks great !! Surprising how
>>> these Kitfox sell so cheap and at a fraction of a new Kit. Yours only
>>> has 150 hours? Good deal for some one.
>>> If anyone looking fora 582 Amphib fox there is one there as well on
>>> Aerocet floats for 25k . Flaots worth about 8k alone. Great deal
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe(at)cox.net>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 7:59 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just a thought, once the horizontal stabilizers are adjusted for proper
>>>> flight why not replace the horizontal struts with "fixed" units. That
>>>> is, replace with tubing with crimped ends and no rod ends to break.
>>>>
>>>> Don Smythe
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>
>>>> To:
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:59 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I bought the 1/4" threaded stud inserts to fit those forward hort.
>>>>> stab struts, and welded them in, fitted the 1/4" rod ends and have had
>>>>> no problems in over 200 hrs of flight, and like Lowell, check them
>>>>> prior to, and after each day of flying.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lynn
>>>>> On Saturday, December 2, 2006, at 05:33 PM, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jerry,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still have the 3/16 rod ends on the foreward horizontal stab strut
>>>>>> and it is part of my preflight check.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding stronger wings. I wonder if this is a plus, as the Kifox
>>>>>> design with more "room for error" is a proven design as there have
>>>>>> been no structural failures. If after about 15 years of uneventful
>>>>>> use, would there be a reason to change the design?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lowell
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles(at)bayou.com>
>>>>>> To:
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:25 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Avid's, at least from the B model on, use one large size rod end on
>>>>>>> the rear strut of the left wing to allow trimming. No other rod ends
>>>>>>> are used in the wing or tail struts. Bolts in shear take the loads.
>>>>>>> Kitfox had some problems with rod ends failing in tail struts and
>>>>>>> finally went to beefier rod ends or simple struts for the tail.
>>>>>>> Using straight struts in the Avid left little room for error but
>>>>>>> resulted in a stronger wing and tail.
>>>>>>> Jerry Liles
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rex Shaw wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where did it fail ?
>>>>>>>> The carry throguh tube would be one of the weakest links.
>>>>>>>> Rod ends would be the next weakest link I think. If you look at
>>>>>>>> the Avids
>>>>>>>> they do not use rod ends.
>>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>> Dave,
>>>>>>>> I'm only going on memory here so please no one take it
>>>>>>>> for gospel but I seem to remember the weakest link is the rod end
>>>>>>>> but also here in Australia anyway we have Skyfox's that are rough
>>>>>>>> copies of Kitfox's. These are apparently failing at the carry
>>>>>>>> through tube and there is an AD out for that. I understand they
>>>>>>>> have a weaker tube, maybe wall thickness not sure !
>>>>>>>> Also took my interest to read the Avid does not use rod ends.
>>>>>>>> What do they do ? I assume just a bolt ! Is it in shear ?
>>>>>>>> I think that loading the wing to failure point is on a video
>>>>>>>> copied by Grant Fluent on this list. I guess anyone that wants a
>>>>>>>> copy could first check with Grant that this is on the Video then
>>>>>>>> buy a copy from him. I remember his price was extremely reasonable
>>>>>>>> and there was a lot of interesting stuff on the DVD copy like loops
>>>>>>>> and rolls in a Kitfox.
>>>>>>>> Rex.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Failure Point |
Jerry,
Apples and oranges here. The failure with wrestle had to do with the jack
screw in the larger models that trimmed the horizontal stabilizer. That is
what failed. It had nothing to do with the struts, though it is agreed that
the larger models the struts had been beefed up and possibly with the use of
accepted AN fittings.
I remember two - maybe more of the rod ends - rather the stud going into the
rod ends - failing and it was discovered on the ground after a flight. I
don't recall if there was a "feeling" in flight, but it definitely was not a
wrestle. There was an upgrade offered, but I couldn't find a Service Letter
or Bulletin on the issue.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles(at)bayou.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
> While it never caused a crash that I'm aware of there were just too many
> incidents of failure of the horizontal stab rod ends to call it ok. I
> recall one incident a few years ago related by a member of the Kitfox list
> of having to wrestle his airplane back home as it suddenly wanted to
> descend and turn and he could not figure out why until someone on the list
> suggested he inspect the horizontal stab. If the forces had been a bit
> greater the stab might have twisted or fluttered and made the plane
> uncontrollable or stressed the rear rod end to failure. That might have
> hurt. As for the rod ends on the wings they seem to be trouble free and
> adequately strong and make it easier to correct any minor misalignments,
> certainly more so than on an Avid, though I had no problem with mine.
>
> dave wrote:
>
>>
>> Lowell,
>>
>> I agree on the horiz stab rod ends being ok. I think alot of the
>> problem might have been from the pilot pulling on it rather than the
>> grab handle ?
>>
>> As far as the wings, I agree they seem strong but the idea for 2 rod
>> ends on the strut if probably to make up for builing errors if any as
>> well as adjustment. . I have not heard of them coming apart but I have
>> broken them on other applications. They are tiny compared to GA
>> aircraft. That being said, has ther ever been an in flight breakup of a
>> Kitfox ?
>>
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net>
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Jerry,
>>>
>>> Interesting.
>>>
>>> I still have the 3/16 rod ends on the foreward horizontal stab strut and
>>> it is part of my preflight check.
>>>
>>> Regarding stronger wings. I wonder if this is a plus, as the Kifox
>>> design with more "room for error" is a proven design as there have been
>>> no structural failures. If after about 15 years of uneventful use,
>>> would there be a reason to change the design?
>>>
>>> Lowell
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles(at)bayou.com>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:25 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Avid's, at least from the B model on, use one large size rod end on the
>>>> rear strut of the left wing to allow trimming. No other rod ends are
>>>> used in the wing or tail struts. Bolts in shear take the loads.
>>>> Kitfox had some problems with rod ends failing in tail struts and
>>>> finally went to beefier rod ends or simple struts for the tail. Using
>>>> straight struts in the Avid left little room for error but resulted in
>>>> a stronger wing and tail.
>>>> Jerry Liles
>>>>
>>>> Rex Shaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Where did it fail ?
>>>>> The carry throguh tube would be one of the weakest links.
>>>>> Rod ends would be the next weakest link I think. If you look at the
>>>>> Avids
>>>>> they do not use rod ends.
>>>>> Dave
>>>>> Dave,
>>>>> I'm only going on memory here so please no one take it for
>>>>> gospel but I seem to remember the weakest link is the rod end but also
>>>>> here in Australia anyway we have Skyfox's that are rough copies of
>>>>> Kitfox's. These are apparently failing at the carry through tube and
>>>>> there is an AD out for that. I understand they have a weaker tube,
>>>>> maybe wall thickness not sure !
>>>>> Also took my interest to read the Avid does not use rod ends. What
>>>>> do they do ? I assume just a bolt ! Is it in shear ?
>>>>> I think that loading the wing to failure point is on a video copied
>>>>> by Grant Fluent on this list. I guess anyone that wants a copy could
>>>>> first check with Grant that this is on the Video then buy a copy from
>>>>> him. I remember his price was extremely reasonable and there was a lot
>>>>> of interesting stuff on the DVD copy like loops and rolls in a Kitfox.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rex.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Overdue plane |
Hi Ron,
Been there, done that too many times myself in the
Marines.
I hope for a close call and a pleasant surprise.
Keep us informed.
Kurt S. S-5
--- ron schick wrote:
> My friends I fear the worst for my neighbor and
> friend. At about 4:00 my
> Kitfox and I were in loose formation with N914C and
> now at 8:43 the hanger
> is empty, the trucks are still there, and the police
> have been to his house.
> Hug your wife, kids or whatever and remember there
> is no reset button. A
> picture of a non Kitfox friend. Ron NB Ore (Coos
> Bay)
Cheap talk?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine cooling - was Subaru EA-81 |
That is a lot of great info Jan. Thanks.
The engine heat diagram is very informative.
I am reminded of the piston jet engine I read about
years ago. The entire thrust of the engine was a
produce of the exhaust. No prop. The piston was free
to oscillate between 2 cylinder heads on opposite ends
of a cylinder. It was a 2 cycle, and the intake and
exhaust were in the middle of the cylinder.
The exhaust was fed into a chamber where water was
injected and the steam was then blown out thru a
nozzel. Lots of thrust and noise were the results.
But I wonder how much of the origional energy was
turned into thrust by this simple engine? It could
have been much more energy efficient than our piston
engines turning a prop. But the need to carry a lot
of water around to make the steam for continuous
thrust was certainly a reason for it to never be
produced.
What keeps it in my memory is that our heat loss thru
the exhaust can be used for short periods of time and
much thrust using a small amount of water. It would
be interesting to figure out how much thrust can be
gained for how long with one gallon of water. Could
be a great short field performer. Even better, you
can get more thrust on floats, where you can feed
water from the lake rather than carrying it with you.
Much thrust increase for little added weight, but then
there is the back pressure in the exhaust to contend
with too.
Just some ideas to pass out for those who want to
really experiment.
Kurt S. S-5
--- JC Propellerdesign
wrote:
> Here is a lot interesting information about cooling,
>
> http://www.rotaryeng.net/how-to-cool12.html
>
> Also attached is an excel file for cooling estimate.
>
> Jan Carlsson
> www.jcpropellerdesign.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Graichen" <n10pg(at)neo.rr.com> |
NO!
Peter Graichen
http:/home.neo.rr.com/n10pg/kitfox.htm
Peter:
Did you use any type of lead scavinger?
Clem Nichols
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Graichen" <n10pg(at)neo.rr.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 8:48 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: EA-81 fuel
>
> I have used nothing but 100LL av-fuel in over 1000 hrs of operation in my
> NSI EA-81 Subaru without any problems.
> Peter Graichen
> http:/home.neo.rr.com/n10pg/kitfox.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Graichen" <n10pg(at)neo.rr.com> |
Hello Dick:
I use the aluminum radiator furnished by NSI which is 24 x 6 x 2 inch. I
installed a 180 deg thermostat. I confirmed with extensive instrumented
tests NSI's statement that the oil temperature is essentially always the
same as or within a few degrees of the coolant temperature. Therefore an oil
cooler is not required.
Peter Graichen
http:/home.neo.rr.com/n10pg/kitfox.htm
I am curious to what size radiators are being used (Square inches) with
success for proper cooling on a Subaru EA-81 engine with carburetors. Also
is an oil cooler necessary?
Thanks
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Model II MTOW - Strut sizes |
Here are some pics of some of the current model testing that was done for
the IV as well. http://www.kitfoxaircraft.com/testing information.htm
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
208.337.5111
www.kitfoxaircraft.com
"It's not how Fast... It's how Fun!"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes
In the sales brochure from the period I ordered my kit (1992) there is the
picture mentioned, but I have never seen a discussion describing the test
and the failure mode, except on the list. It shows a fuselage with wings,
upside-down with bags of something that created bowing on both spars
inboard of the strut and sagging outboard. There is also a picture of the
horizontal Stabilizer, this time right side up with similar weights on it.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "ron schick" <roncarolnikko(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes
>
>
> Rex I have that picture somewhere in My Avid builders manual. Never saw
> it in all of my Kitfox materials. Perhaps there is one, but not in my
> 92' speedster manual. Last time I scanned and posted I overdosed the Avid
> photo section. Not very good at downsizing so if someone else finds one
> first..... Ron NB Ore
>
>
>>From: GypsyBeeInnkeepers <hefferans(at)gmail.com>
>>Reply-To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
>>To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes
>>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:57:54 -0700
>>
>>
>>
>>Somewhere in one of the old kitfox newsletters, from Denny Aircraft I
>>believe, is a article with a picture of a kitfox wing mounted upside down
>>to a test rig and a great many sand bags placed on the wing for a static
>>load test. I think the wing structure supported the equivalent of over
>>15G's before failure. Not sure how we should relate the test to this whole
>>subject.
>>I'm away from home and the article or I would offer to upload a copy.
>>Maybe someone else has it?
>>
>>Rex Hefferan
>>Colorado
>>
>>
>>Noel Loveys wrote:
>>
>>>The stresses on the struts are tensional and I'm sure they are way over
>>>2000lb tensional strength. ( 100% over stress for the weight of the
>>>plane ) What is the diameter or you carry through tube? My rear support
>>>legs are attached to the lower chines next to the carry through tube. I
>>>haven't looked inside yet but I wouldn't be surprised to find a couple of
>>>cluster welds there to distribute the stress of the rear float legs.
>>>
>>>
>>>Noel
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> *From:* owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *dave
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 28, 2006 3:02 PM
>>> *To:* kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW - Strut sizes
>>>
>>> Noel, For referance my IV struts are 1.00 " -- no idea
>>> on the
>>> thickness. I would be concerned about the carry through diameter
>>> and thickness as well. On Floats the carry through tube supports
>>> the rear float support legs just behind the step as well as the
>>> wing loads from the struts. I would call John McBean for
>>> his insights.
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Noel Loveys
>>> *To:* kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
>>>
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:19 PM
>>> *Subject:* RE: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW
>>>
>>> My plane is #736 I know there is an "I" beam inside the
>>> spars. the struts are .75" and I haven't had a chance yet to
>>> check the carry through. The plane is on floats
>>> and as the floats themselves will fly
>>> their own weight I'm sure the plane can handle 1050lb. on
>>> floats. the issue now becomes one of insurance. I've
>>> contacted TC (Transport Canada) and they are willing to change
>>> the gross weight for me.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Shopping has everything on your holiday list. Get expert picks by
> style, age, and price. Try it!
>
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId00,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata 0601&tc
ode=wlmtagline
>
>
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PWilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Failure Point |
Testing my memory but didn't they offer the aero tubing and 1/4x28
rod ends. The
up grade was very expensive.
Paul
==============
At 09:29 AM 12/3/2006, you wrote:
>
>Jerry,
>
>Apples and oranges here. The failure with wrestle had to do with
>the jack screw in the larger models that trimmed the horizontal
>stabilizer. That is what failed. It had nothing to do with the
>struts, though it is agreed that the larger models the struts had
>been beefed up and possibly with the use of accepted AN fittings.
>
>I remember two - maybe more of the rod ends - rather the stud going
>into the rod ends - failing and it was discovered on the ground
>after a flight. I don't recall if there was a "feeling" in flight,
>but it definitely was not a wrestle. There was an upgrade offered,
>but I couldn't find a Service Letter or Bulletin on the issue.
>
>Lowell
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles(at)bayou.com>
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 6:26 PM
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
>
>>
>>While it never caused a crash that I'm aware of there were just too
>>many incidents of failure of the horizontal stab rod ends to call
>>it ok. I recall one incident a few years ago related by a member
>>of the Kitfox list of having to wrestle his airplane back home as
>>it suddenly wanted to descend and turn and he could not figure out
>>why until someone on the list suggested he inspect the horizontal
>>stab. If the forces had been a bit greater the stab might have
>>twisted or fluttered and made the plane uncontrollable or stressed
>>the rear rod end to failure. That might have hurt. As for the rod
>>ends on the wings they seem to be trouble free and adequately
>>strong and make it easier to correct any minor misalignments,
>>certainly more so than on an Avid, though I had no problem with mine.
>>
>>dave wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Lowell,
>>>
>>>I agree on the horiz stab rod ends being ok. I think alot of
>>>the problem might have been from the pilot pulling on it rather
>>>than the grab handle ?
>>>
>>>As far as the wings, I agree they seem strong but the idea for 2
>>>rod ends on the strut if probably to make up for builing errors if
>>>any as well as adjustment. . I have not heard of them coming
>>>apart but I have broken them on other applications. They are tiny
>>>compared to GA aircraft. That being said, has ther ever been an
>>>in flight breakup of a Kitfox ?
>>>
>>>
>>>Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net>
>>>To:
>>>Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:33 PM
>>>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Jerry,
>>>>
>>>>Interesting.
>>>>
>>>>I still have the 3/16 rod ends on the foreward horizontal stab
>>>>strut and it is part of my preflight check.
>>>>
>>>>Regarding stronger wings. I wonder if this is a plus, as the
>>>>Kifox design with more "room for error" is a proven design as
>>>>there have been no structural failures. If after about 15 years
>>>>of uneventful use, would there be a reason to change the design?
>>>>
>>>>Lowell
>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles(at)bayou.com>
>>>>To:
>>>>Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:25 AM
>>>>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Avid's, at least from the B model on, use one large size rod end
>>>>>on the rear strut of the left wing to allow trimming. No other
>>>>>rod ends are used in the wing or tail struts. Bolts in shear
>>>>>take the loads. Kitfox had some problems with rod ends failing
>>>>>in tail struts and finally went to beefier rod ends or simple
>>>>>struts for the tail. Using straight struts in the Avid left
>>>>>little room for error but resulted in a stronger wing and tail.
>>>>>Jerry Liles
>>>>>
>>>>>Rex Shaw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Where did it fail ?
>>>>>>The carry throguh tube would be one of the weakest links.
>>>>>>Rod ends would be the next weakest link I think. If you look
>>>>>>at the Avids
>>>>>>they do not use rod ends.
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>> Dave,
>>>>>> I'm only going on memory here so please no one
>>>>>> take it for gospel but I seem to remember the weakest link is
>>>>>> the rod end but also here in Australia anyway we have Skyfox's
>>>>>> that are rough copies of Kitfox's. These are apparently
>>>>>> failing at the carry through tube and there is an AD out for
>>>>>> that. I understand they have a weaker tube, maybe wall thickness not sure
!
>>>>>> Also took my interest to read the Avid does not use rod
>>>>>> ends. What do they do ? I assume just a bolt ! Is it in shear ?
>>>>>> I think that loading the wing to failure point is on a video
>>>>>> copied by Grant Fluent on this list. I guess anyone that wants
>>>>>> a copy could first check with Grant that this is on the Video
>>>>>> then buy a copy from him. I remember his price was extremely
>>>>>> reasonable and there was a lot of interesting stuff on the DVD
>>>>>> copy like loops and rolls in a Kitfox.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rex.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Liles <wliles(at)bayou.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Failure Point |
Lowell
There was an incident of tail strut failure in flight with difficulty
maintaining steady level flight that was reported to this list. This was
a Model 4, not a Model 5 with the jackscrew trim system. The
correspondent couldn't figure out what had happened until someone (might
have been me) asked him to inspect the tail lift struts. My point is
failures have occurred for whatever reason and may well occur again.
This is a type of failure that is survivable but is potentially
disasterous. Kitfox (Skystar) finally upgraded the struts to larger
rodend fittings. My feeling is the small rod end fittings on Model 4
are a known point of failure,whether from improper ground handling,
improper assembly, or stress of flight, with potential for disaster and
I would replace them.
Back then the list manager had a reguarly updated message called "Kitfox
Safe" where all the problems and potential problems and how to handle
them were listed. Unfortunately I have a relatively new computer and I
do not have a copy of Kitfox Safe. Perhaps someone else saved a copy?
Jerry Liles
Lowell Fitt wrote:
>
> Jerry,
>
> Apples and oranges here. The failure with wrestle had to do with the
> jack screw in the larger models that trimmed the horizontal
> stabilizer. That is what failed. It had nothing to do with the
> struts, though it is agreed that the larger models the struts had been
> beefed up and possibly with the use of accepted AN fittings.
>
> I remember two - maybe more of the rod ends - rather the stud going
> into the rod ends - failing and it was discovered on the ground after
> a flight. I don't recall if there was a "feeling" in flight, but it
> definitely was not a wrestle. There was an upgrade offered, but I
> couldn't find a Service Letter or Bulletin on the issue.
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles(at)bayou.com>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 6:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
>
>>
>> While it never caused a crash that I'm aware of there were just too
>> many incidents of failure of the horizontal stab rod ends to call it
>> ok. I recall one incident a few years ago related by a member of the
>> Kitfox list of having to wrestle his airplane back home as it
>> suddenly wanted to descend and turn and he could not figure out why
>> until someone on the list suggested he inspect the horizontal stab.
>> If the forces had been a bit greater the stab might have twisted or
>> fluttered and made the plane uncontrollable or stressed the rear rod
>> end to failure. That might have hurt. As for the rod ends on the
>> wings they seem to be trouble free and adequately strong and make it
>> easier to correct any minor misalignments, certainly more so than on
>> an Avid, though I had no problem with mine.
>>
>> dave wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Lowell,
>>>
>>> I agree on the horiz stab rod ends being ok. I think alot of the
>>> problem might have been from the pilot pulling on it rather than
>>> the grab handle ?
>>>
>>> As far as the wings, I agree they seem strong but the idea for 2
>>> rod ends on the strut if probably to make up for builing errors if
>>> any as well as adjustment. . I have not heard of them coming apart
>>> but I have broken them on other applications. They are tiny
>>> compared to GA aircraft. That being said, has ther ever been an in
>>> flight breakup of a Kitfox ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:33 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jerry,
>>>>
>>>> Interesting.
>>>>
>>>> I still have the 3/16 rod ends on the foreward horizontal stab
>>>> strut and it is part of my preflight check.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding stronger wings. I wonder if this is a plus, as the Kifox
>>>> design with more "room for error" is a proven design as there have
>>>> been no structural failures. If after about 15 years of uneventful
>>>> use, would there be a reason to change the design?
>>>>
>>>> Lowell
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles(at)bayou.com>
>>>> To:
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:25 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Avid's, at least from the B model on, use one large size rod end
>>>>> on the rear strut of the left wing to allow trimming. No other rod
>>>>> ends are used in the wing or tail struts. Bolts in shear take the
>>>>> loads. Kitfox had some problems with rod ends failing in tail
>>>>> struts and finally went to beefier rod ends or simple struts for
>>>>> the tail. Using straight struts in the Avid left little room for
>>>>> error but resulted in a stronger wing and tail.
>>>>> Jerry Liles
>>>>>
>>>>> Rex Shaw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Where did it fail ?
>>>>>> The carry throguh tube would be one of the weakest links.
>>>>>> Rod ends would be the next weakest link I think. If you look at
>>>>>> the Avids
>>>>>> they do not use rod ends.
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>> Dave,
>>>>>> I'm only going on memory here so please no one take
>>>>>> it for gospel but I seem to remember the weakest link is the rod
>>>>>> end but also here in Australia anyway we have Skyfox's that are
>>>>>> rough copies of Kitfox's. These are apparently failing at the
>>>>>> carry through tube and there is an AD out for that. I understand
>>>>>> they have a weaker tube, maybe wall thickness not sure !
>>>>>> Also took my interest to read the Avid does not use rod ends.
>>>>>> What do they do ? I assume just a bolt ! Is it in shear ?
>>>>>> I think that loading the wing to failure point is on a video
>>>>>> copied by Grant Fluent on this list. I guess anyone that wants a
>>>>>> copy could first check with Grant that this is on the Video then
>>>>>> buy a copy from him. I remember his price was extremely
>>>>>> reasonable and there was a lot of interesting stuff on the DVD
>>>>>> copy like loops and rolls in a Kitfox.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rex.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ron schick" <roncarolnikko(at)hotmail.com> |
Now a search and recovery. Witnesses reported a straight in about 300 yards
offshore. I flew the coast more than an hour today and saw only sea lions
and bubbles from the divers. Sonar arrives tommorow. Ron NB Ore
_________________________________________________________________
View Athletes Collections with Live Search
http://sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=MGAC01
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Palamarek" <temco(at)telusplanet.net> |
Jerry
I have all the KifoxSafe items and below is a pasted copy of Item 21 which
deals with the horizontal stabilizer rod ends.
Regards Ted
-------------------------------------------------------
#21 3/25/98
(MAJOR) (MODEL IV'S ONLY) HORIZONTAL STABILIZER
SUPPORT STRUTS BREAKING AT 3/16" THREADED END. Loss of horizontal
stabilizer support and possible Elevator control.
1. Replace support struts and rod ends with ones that are equipped with 1/4"
threaded ends.
2. Take extreme caution that the Horizontal Stabilizer is never used to move
the Aircraft around on the ground.
3. Inspect frequently.
4. Look for a method to "BEEF" up the joint.
5. (AT THE REQUEST OF SS) SS has a 1/4" strut kit for sale at a price of
$185. PART # 10581
-------------------------------------------------
-------SNIP------
Back then the list manager had a reguarly updated message called "Kitfox
Safe" where all the problems and potential problems and how to handle
them were listed. Unfortunately I have a relatively new computer and I
do not have a copy of Kitfox Safe. Perhaps someone else saved a copy?
Jerry Liles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Vader" <vadert(at)telusplanet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Failure Point |
Ted
Could you post a list or a file of all the KitfoxSafe items. I'd like
to have a look at all of them. I haven't been on the list that long and have
never seen the list.
Thanks,
Tim Vader
Calgary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Palamarek" <temco(at)telusplanet.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 6:58 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
>
> Jerry
>
> I have all the KifoxSafe items and below is a pasted copy of Item 21 which
> deals with the horizontal stabilizer rod ends.
>
> Regards Ted
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> #21 3/25/98
>
> (MAJOR) (MODEL IV'S ONLY) HORIZONTAL STABILIZER
> SUPPORT STRUTS BREAKING AT 3/16" THREADED END. Loss of horizontal
> stabilizer support and possible Elevator control.
> 1. Replace support struts and rod ends with ones that are equipped with
> 1/4"
> threaded ends.
> 2. Take extreme caution that the Horizontal Stabilizer is never used to
> move
> the Aircraft around on the ground.
> 3. Inspect frequently.
> 4. Look for a method to "BEEF" up the joint.
> 5. (AT THE REQUEST OF SS) SS has a 1/4" strut kit for sale at a price of
> $185. PART # 10581
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -------SNIP------
> Back then the list manager had a reguarly updated message called "Kitfox
> Safe" where all the problems and potential problems and how to handle
> them were listed. Unfortunately I have a relatively new computer and I
> do not have a copy of Kitfox Safe. Perhaps someone else saved a copy?
>
> Jerry Liles
>
>
> --
> 25/11/2006
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall(at)comcast.net> |
Here is a list of "KitfoxSafe" items started by Don Smith. He put a lot of
effort into it and deserves Kudos.
Don Pearsall
______________
KITFOXSAFE CONCERNS AND COMMENTS
This is a list of safety concerns submitted by Kitfox builders and compiled
by Don Smythe
KITFOXSAFE CONCERNS AND COMMENTS
KITFOXSAFE CONCERNS AND COMMENTS
********************************
* NEW CONCERN *
* THROTTLE CABLE CLUSTER SOCKETS *
********
#39
CONCERN: (MINOR) THROTTLE AND INJECTOR CABLES JUMPING THEIR SOCKETS;
DATE: 11-23-99
IMPACT: The barrels on the ends of the cables have been know to jump out
of the "sockets" at the throttle cluster. This will cause the
throttles or oil injection functions to be extremely out of sync.
"LIST": 1. Find a means (safety wire, tie wrap, etc.) to better hold the
cable ends in the cluster sockets.
********
#38
CONCERN: (MINOR) (PRIMARILY 582??) ROTAX STARTER GEAR SPRING BREAKING;
DATE: 9-30-99
IMPACT: Freezing up the Rotax starter and possible (but not likely)
damage
to starter and flywheel.
"LIST": 1. Periodically lubricate the starter gear/shaft.
2. NOTE: Reportedly, the Rotax/SS manual recommends lubricating
at each annual.
3. Possible choice for lubrication is motor cycle chain lube
oil.
It's designed with an anti-fling additive. Can be applied
without removing engine/starter.
********
#37
CONCERN: (MINOR)(582 ONLY) ROTARY VALVE RESERVOIR HOSES FAILING;
DATE: 7-23-99
IMPACT: Leaking or loss of rotary valve oil. Could result in
engine damage
"LIST": 1. Replace the original "braided" lines with an automotive type
hose.
2. NOTE: The engine fitting is 7/16" whereas, the original hose
is 3/8". This causes a stretching of the hose over the
fitting
and a potential stress point. Understand that 7/16" I.D. hose
might be hard to locate. Try a farm products outlet for
7/16" ID hose.
********
#36
CONCERN: (MAJOR) MIL-6000 RUBBER FUEL LINES SWELLING SHUT;
DATE: 7-22-99
IMPACT: Fuel starvation and engine failure. Recent incident resulted in
significant reduced power at landing. Mil-6000 lines were 3 years
old. Exterior inspection will not reveal the internal swelling.
"LIST": 1. Change Mil-6000 fuel lines to an automotive type,
Polyurethane,
or Tygon (translucent yellow #F-40-40-A)
2. Replace fuel lines at each annual or every other annual
3. Perform periodic fuel flow rate test.
4. Note fuel flow rate with/without filters installed. Insure
the addition of filters don't reduce fuel rates below spec
(150% of max fuel usage).
********
#35
CONCERN: (MAJOR) GSC CTA PROP HUB PISTON BEARING FREEZING
DATE: 7-19-99
IMPACT: There is a small bearing and piston in the prop hub that controls
the pitch of the blades. This bearing has a recommended
replacement of 100 hours. To date, two know failures have been
reported to the list. One at 40 hours of service and the other at
5 hours. Bearing failure causes the blades to fail to a fine
pitch
and the ability to maintain altitude may be lost.
"LIST": 1. Insure the failed (minimum) pitch will sustain flight. Adjust
if possible.
********
#34
CONCERN: (MINOR)(PRIMARILY SERIES V) FIBERGLASS SEAT BREAKING RESULTING
IN JAMMED CONTROL LINKAGE
DATE: 6-29-99
IMPACT: Breaking of the seat or seat coming loose from the fuselage
support tubes could result in the below control tubes becoming
Jammed. A complete loss of control of the aircraft could
occur.
"LIST": 1. Ensure the seat is properly and securely attached to the
fuselage tubing
2. Look at reinforcing the fiberglass seat in the areas where
it attaches to the tubes
3. Provide full length support from top to bottom (seat lips)
with either stainless strap or webbing of some sort.
4. Consider using metal hose clamps vice plastic tie wraps to
secure the seat.
5. Inspect the seat frequently for signs of cracking.
Especially after any hard landings.
********
#33
CONCERN: (MINOR) (532-582) FAILURE OF FLOAT GUIDES IN THE BING CARBS
DATE: 6-29-99
IMPACT: There was a article concerning the small guides in the Bing
carbs (floats) wearing due to vibration. Once the guides were
worn, the float body starts to wear and pieces of the float
found their way to the jets. The result is engine failure due
to fuel starvation. The guide in question is the bottom one.
"LISTS": Inspect the bottom and top guides where the push rod passes
through the float body frequently. Repair/ replace if
necessary.
********
#032
CONCERN: (MAJOR)(582ONLY) FAILURE OF PULSE DRIVEN FUEL PUMP DUE TO
PULSE LINE / PUMP DIAPHRAGM
DATE: 6-14-99
IMPACT: loss of engine due to failure of pump diaphragm or engine
pulse line
"LIST": 1. Check pulse line (and all fuel lines) frequently for cracks
and signs of drying out. Replace as necessary.
2. Consider replacing pulse lines and all other fuel lines at
regular annual intervals.
3. Consider overhauling or replacing the pulse operated fuel
pump at some regular interval (annual/bi-annual,etc.)
4. Consider the addition of a back up electrical pump.
5. CAUTION; a ruptured pump diaphragm will cause the engine
crankcase to flood with raw fuel through the engine pulse
line. A backup elec pump installed in series with the fuel
line will not help this situation.
6. CAUTION; a leaking pulse line could result in an extreme
lean engine mixture.
********
#031
CONCERN: (MINOR) SEPARATION OF THE BUTT RIB CAPSTRIP FROM THE BUTT
RIB
DATE: 5-5-99
IMPACT: During moderate to severe turbulence, a Kitfox had its
butt rib capstrip separate from the rest of the rib that
left a 1/2" gap between the windshield and the butt rib.
This condition could cause undo stress on the windshield
and premature breakage.
"LIST": Attach several short alum angle pieces on the inside of
the butt rib that will tie the horizontal capstrip to the
vertical rib. One member also used the alum pieces to
attach "nut plates" where he then bolted the windshield to
the capstrips vice pop-rivet.
********
#030
CONCERN: (MAJOR) SELECTION AND INSTALLATION OF FUEL FILTERS
DATE: 5-3-99
IMPACT: Fuel starvation due to improper filters or installation.
"LIST": 1. The glass Purolator filters are rated at 40-70 Micron.
The 40 rating is 50% effective whereas the 70 rating
is 98% effective. Possible good pre-filter at wing
tank.
2. Never use filters without knowing the Micron rating.
3. Paper element filters can clog if subjected to water.
4. Fiberglass fragments are "invisible" to the eye in
see through filters.
********
#029
CONCERN: (MAJOR) ELEVATOR TRIM MOTOR "HOUSING" BREAKING.
(SERIES 5 ONLY)
DATE: 3-8-99
IMPACT: Elevator is allowed to "flop" from limit to limit
resulting in uncontrollable elevator. (one Kitfox
lost to date. Unable to flare during landing)
"LIST": 1. Inspect housing frequently for signs of cracking.
2. Investigate a method to limit the elevator travel
if break occurs (cable, block, etc.).
********
#028
CONCERN: (MINOR) FLAPERON HINGE'S FREEZING
DATE: 2-5-99
IMPACT: Loss of Flaperon control
"LIST": 1. Lubricate with silicon or something to prevent
water build up in the hinge area.
2. Prevent water intrusion in wet climates
********
#027
CONCERN: (MAJOR) ROTAX 912 ENGINE MOUNTS CRACKING
DATE: 1/26/99
IMPACT: Loss of engine support
"LIST": 1. Three failures have been reported. One was first
hand and the other two were second hand reports.
2. Inspect carefully for any evidence of hairline
cracks starting to occur in the ASTM 4130 Chrome
Alloy tubing.
3. Re-weld and add sufficient additional support.
********
#026
CONCERN: (MINOR) POSSIBLE FUEL STARVATION
DATE: 12/22/98
IMPACT: Some circumstances can cause fuel starvation from the
wing tanks to the header tank
"LIST": 1. Ensure a continuous "downward" routing of fuel
lines from wing to header
2. Check filters frequently for fiberglass/Kreem
particles
3. Be cautious with "paper" type filters in areas
where water might be a factor.
4. Check fuel tank strainers frequently for
particles.
********
#025
CONCERN: (MINOR) BROKEN/CRACKED MUFFLERS ON THE 912 DUE TO
VIBRATION
DATE: 12/01/98
IMPACT: Possible fire in the engine compartment or
exhaust in cockpit
"LIST": 1. Re-weld and "Beef" up joints by adding
a steel bar to further support the exhaust pipe
2. Check at preflight by giving a tug on
the exhaust pipe
3. NDT (Dye Penetrate) at annual
********
#024
CONCERN: (MAJOR) ROTAX 912 OIL PRESSURE REDUCTION/LOSS
DATE: 11-19-98
IMPACT: Damage to engine or engine failure
"LIST": John King's problem has been isolated to a crimped
oil line caused by a hose clamp. The crimp was at a
short section of line at the oil filter fitting. The
Earl cooler appears "NOT" to be the problem. Other
members are still investigating their causes.
********
#023
CONCERN: (MAJOR) FUEL TANK COATINGS, CRACKING (KREEM);
DATE: 6-15-98
IMPACT: Engine failure; Fuel system contamination;
"LIST": 1. Remove old Kreem with MEK/Acetone
2. Re-coat tanks with new (Kreem) OR NOT
3. Inspect tank interiors regular for signs of
cracking or flaking of Kreem.
4. Inspect fuel samples for signs of white Kreem
particles
5. Clean tank strainers regularly.
6. Replace fuel filters regularly.
********
#022
CONCERN: (MAJOR) FUEL TANKS; FIBERGLASS FRAGMENTS CLOGGING
FILTERS; TRANSPARENT TO THE EYE THROUGH GLASS FILTERS
DATE: 7-20-98
IMPACT: Engine failure; Clogged fuel system
"LIST": 1. Replace filters regularly.
2. Cut open old filters and check for fragments and
other debris. Fiberglass particles have been
reported as transparent in the glass type
filters.
********
#021
CONCERN: (MAJOR) (MODEL IV's ONLY) HORIZONTAL STABILIZER
SUPPORT STRUTS BREAKING AT 3/16" THREADED END.
DATE: 3-25-98
IMPACT: Loss of horizontal stabilizer support and possible
Elevator control.
"LIST": 1. Replace support struts and rod ends with ones that
are equipped with 1/4" threaded ends.
2. Take extreme caution that the Horizontal
Stabilizer is never used to move the Aircraft
around on the ground.
3. Inspect frequently.
4. Look for a method to "BEEF" up the joint.
********
#020
CONCERN: (MAJOR) (PRIMARILY 912's ONLY) ROTAX IGNITION
MODULES; WIRES BREAKING
DATE: 3-25-98
IMPACT: Loss of ignition or, one half the ignition system
"LIST": 1. Relocate ign modules from the engine to the
firewall
2. Immobilize the Rotax wiring and provide extension
harness of MIL-Spec wiring and connectors.
********
#019
CONCERN: (MAJOR) RUDDER/BRAKE CONTROL TUBING; BREAKING
AT WELDS (SERIES IV ONLY)
DATE: 12-7-98
IMPACT: Loss of Rudder and Brake control
"LIST": 1. Install retrofit kit provided by Skystar
2. Install reinforcement straps around the tubing at
the welded joints. Weld or rivet in place
********
#018
CONCERN: (MAJOR) RUDDER JAM DUE TO REAR LOCATED RUDDER
ADJUSTMENT LINKS;
DATE: 3-25-98
IMPACT: Possible rudder jam at full rudder
"LIST": 1. Relocate the rudder pedal links to the pedal end.
2. Terminate the rudder cable on top of the rudder
arm and provide safety strap.
3. SS changed the design on the model IV sometime
around the beginning of 1996 and, this concern was
corrected.
********
#017
CONCERN: (MAJOR) FUEL VALVE; "O" RING DETERIORATION
DATE: 3-25-98
IMPACT: Engine failure due to "O" ring entering fuel line and
causing fuel starvation
"LIST": 1. Replace "O" rings with Viton material
2. Replace valve with Chrome ball and Teflon seat type
construction; rated for gasoline.
********
#016
CONCERN: (MAJOR) RUDDER CABLE RUBBING ON RUDDER STOP
DATE: 3-25-98
IMPACT: Wearing of the rudder cable; possible breakage and loss
of rudder control
"LIST": 1. Rudder jamming "concern" above. This correction also
raises the cable to clear the rudder stop.
2. SS changed design on the model IV sometime around the first
of 1996 and, this concern was corrected.
********
#015
CONCERN: (MINOR) FUSING OF THE BUS "FILTER CAPACITOR"
DATE: 3-25-98
IMPACT: Shorted capacitor could result in "Bus" voltage being
shorted to ground; Loss of 12VDC bus.
"LIST": Add an inline fuse to the input of the filter capacitor.
Will lose filter capability but maintain the Bus.
********
#014
CONCERN: (MINOR) LEAKING (POLY) HEADER TANKS
DATE" 3-25-98
IMPACT: Fuel contamination in the Cockpit area.
"LIST": 1. Apply small amount of heat to tank (poly) threads
prior to sealing.
2. Use a good quality sealant
********
#013
CONCERN: (MAJOR/MINOR) THROTTLE CABLE "BALL" ENDS; BREAKING
DATE: 3-25-98
IMPACT: (MAJ-582) Associated carburetor will fail "throttle
shut"; engine failure.
(MIN-912) Associated carburetor will fail full throttle
causing rough engine.
"LIST": Adjust throttle vernier so that positive stop of vernier
hits "just" prior to carburetor cups reaching full
travel. Allows the physical stop on the vernier to
contact first and prevents stress to the cable "ball"
ends at the carb cups.
********
#012
CONCERN: (MAJOR/MINOR) THROTTLE VERNIER CONNECTION TO THROTTLE
CLUSTER; SLIPPING
DATE: 3-25-98
IMPACT: Loss of throttle control. (MAJ-582) (MIN -912). See
comments on "THROTTLE CABLE "BALL" ENDS; BREAKING
"LIST": 1. Provide a more positive means to attach the solid wire
(center of vernier) to the throttle cluster.
2. Provide any extra "bug" nut sleeve assy between the throttle
cluster and the end of the outer throttle covering. Be careful
not to interfere with the idle or full throttle operation of
the
Vernier. Adjust the location to give you approximatly 75%
power
(582) if the original bug nut fails or slips.
3. SET SCREW ( OVAL POINT).. IS DESIGNED TO APPLY PRESSURE WITHOUT
CUTTING.. THIS
IS THE PREFERRED SET SCREW FOR USE ON
SMALL WIRES AND CABLES (i.e. throttle and brake
cables).. AS THERE IS NO CUTTING
SURFACE, CHANCES OF DAMAGING THE CABLE OR WIRE
ARE GREATLY REDUCED.
4. SET SCREW ( CUP POINT). IS DESIGNED FOR
USE WHERE SET SCREW MUST BITE INTO
MATING SURFACE..(i.e. a pulley of a
steel shaft).. IF THIS TYPE OF SET SCREW IS USED ON A
FLEXIBLE CABLE OR SMALL WIRE IT CAN
CAUSE DAMAGE. AS THIS SET SCREW CUTS INTO
THE MATING SURFACE IT REDUCES THE
STRENGTH OF THE CABLE/WIRE.. ON WIRES IT CAN
CAUSE A "STRESS RISER" WHICH CAN LEAD
TO A BREAK IN THE WIRE.
5. Try to use the "oval point" . If not
available, drill the set screw hole slightly offset from the wire hole so
the
"Cup point" type won't cut into the
wire.
********
#011
CONCERN: (MINOR) Fuel line and vents from wing tanks crimping
DATE: 3-25-98
IMPACT: Engine failure due to fuel starvation and loss of vent.
"LIST": 1. Ensure sufficient slack in lines for folding wings
but, ensure line is continually going down hill from
the wing tank to the header.
2. Inspect carefully for lines "approaching" a crimp
3. Investigate the installation of 90 degree fittings
where lines perform excessive bending; example, the
vent line.
*******
#010
CONCERN: (MINOR) Not choosing to rib Lace the Wings
DATE: 3-25-98
IMPACT: Separation of the fabric to the wing ribs during flight.
"LIST": Skystar and Poly Fiber seem to differ on their opinions
rib lacing. Skystar suggest rib lacing as an "Option".
Poly Fiber considers rib lacing as "Essential".
********
#009
CONCERN: (MAJOR) TUBULAR MAIN LANDING GEAR WELDMENTS;
CRACKING.
DATE: 3-25-98
IMPACT: Uncontrollable aircraft upon landing
"LIST": 1. Inspect weldment frequently for cracking.
2. Replace gear with the solid spring aluminum gear.
*******
#008
CONCERN: (MAJOR) (PRE-93) CRACKING FLYWHEELS ON OLDER 582's
DATE: 3-25-98
IMPACT: Engine destruction/failure
"LIST": 1. Inspect flywheel at first opportunity for cracks
radiating from the bolt holes.
2. Replace with new (heavier) flywheel. Rotax
Bulletin??? refers.
3. Inspect at each annual. Engine removal and partial
tear down preferred. Consider NDT (dye penetrate
test)
*******
#007
CONCERN: (MAJOR) ROTAX 912 ROCKER ARM SEIZURE
DATE: 3-25-98
IMPACT: Loss of power in cylinders depending on No. of cylinders
affected. possible damage to heads, valves, and pistons.
"LIST": 1. remove and inspect rocker arms for evidence of
scoring or seizure.
2. Replace with upgraded (Bronze Bushings) rocker arms
and replacement shaft.
3. Inspect old arms every 200 hours and replace at 600
hours to maintain 1200 TBO
*******
#006
CONCERN: (MINOR) BREAKING OF ROTAX EXHAUST SPRINGS
DATE: 4-6-98
IMPACT: Loss of support for the exhaust system
"LIST": 1. Inspect regularly and replace as necessary
2. Coat springs with high temp RTV
3. Look for a way to isolate the metal to metal
contact????
*******
#005
CONCERN: (MAJOR) GASCOLATOR AND QUICK DRAIN "O" RINGS
DATE: 4-8-98
IMPACT: Failed "O" rings can result in complete drainage of fuel
supply and resultant loss of engine.
"LIST": Inspect and/or replace all "O" rings in the gascolator
and quick drain valves at each annual or more frequently
as necessary.
*******
#004
CONCERN: (MAJOR) ROTAX 912 CARB SOCKETS CRACKING
DATE: 5-6-98
IMPACT: Rough running or failed engine
"LIST": 1. Inspect the rubber carb sockets regularly for a
secure fit and no cracking.
2. Consider replacing at regular intervals as necessary.
*******
#003
CONCERN: (MAJOR) TAIL SPRING MOUNTING BRACKETS/BOLTS BREAKING
DATE: 6-15-98
IMPACT: Loss of steering and tail control
"LIST": 1. Inspect the fuselage tabs for cracks (especially
after any hard landings).
2. Inspect the mounting bolts for signs of wear and
replace if necessary.
*******
#002
CONCERN: (MINOR) CLEVELAND BRAKE CYLINDERS SEPARATING
DATE: 7-27-98
IMPACT: An aircraft (not Kitfox) had a Cleveland brake cylinder
separate due to the "C" keeper ring coming loose. The
separation resulted in the upper part of the cylinder
rotating foreword and jamming against the firewall. This
jamming locked up the rudder. The pilot received fatal
injury.
"LIST": (1) Place a safety cable from the bottom of the cylinder
bolt hole to the top bolt hole. Adjust for no slack
with cylinder in neutral position. The cable will
prevent cylinder separation if keeper ring fails. The
cable will "bow" away when brake pedal is pushed.
*******
#001
CONCERN: (MAJOR) FRAYED AND BROKEN RUDDER CABLE (DURING LANDING)
DATE: 8-26-98
IMPACT: Loss of rudder control and ability to apply brake
"LIST": 1. If a rudder cable were to break, the opposite rudder
spring will cause the pedal to be pulled hard against
the firewall. This applies "unwanted" rudder and
prevents the use of the toe brake.
2. Inspect cables frequently, especially around the
pulley and guide tubes.
3. Never use MEK or such, to clean cables. It removes
the internal lubrication. Lubricate cables around
pulleys and guide tubes with graphite grease.
4. Provide a "stop" to prevent pedal from going hard
against the firewall if a cable breaks. This will
allow continued operation of the toe brakes to
overcome "unwanted" rudder while on the ground.
5. Consider cable replacement as a periodic maintenance
item.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "john perry" <eskflyer(at)lvcisp.com> |
Ron
You all are in my thoughts and prayers .
Im sorry for your loss of a friend .
JP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Palamarek" <temco(at)telusplanet.net> |
Tim and Kitfox list
Don posted from 1 to 39 and here are the rest of the items up to item #47.
The first part is an index of the items as they pertain to various parts of
the aircraft.
Regards --- Ted
K I T F O X S A F E
# DATE ITEM COMMENTS
*** ********* INDEX:
HULL: #47 #46, #40, #39, #34, #31, #29, #28,
#21, #19, #18, #16, #13, #12, #9, #3, #1
582: #45, #43, #38, #37, #33, #32, #8,
912: #27, #25, #24, #20, #7, #4
FUEL: #44, #36, #30, #26, #23, #22, #17, #14,
#11, #5
PROP: #35,
ELECTRICAL: #15
GENERAL: #42, #41, #10, #6, #2
#47 06/15/02 RUDDER PEDAL TORQUE TUBES BREAKING This is an
addition to Item #19 where applicability is extended "ALL" model Kitfox.
#46 06/18/02
(MAJOR) LOOSE RIVETS ON FLAPERON HORN ASSY. The rivets holding the
flapperon horn to the flapperons has been discovers worn and loose on
several aircraft.
1. Replace the rivets with "solid core" type
2. Apply 3M or equivalent adhesive during the installation.
#45
(MAJOR) MISSING "SIEVE SLEEVES" IN BING CARBS (582 ONLY)
Failure to install the "sieve sleeves" in the carb bowls will result
in a very "lean" fuel mixture at high RPM's and may result in engine
seizure.
1. Ensure sleeves are in good condition
2. Ensure the sleeves are in place on the tower each time you complete the
jetting process or perform any carb maintenance.
3. The sleeves are not filters but, are for breaking up foam/bubbles in the
gasoline formed by vibration.
#44
(MINOR) MISSING OR LEAKING FUEL CAPS Can result in loss of fuel, uneven
or, catastrophic flow of fuel. Unusual amount of fuel loss. Transfer of
fuel from one tank to the other and over flowing.
1. Replace fuel cap gaskets with Mercedes-Benz part #140-471-00-79.
2. Ensure caps are installed correctly at each pre-flight.
3. Ensure the cap internal spring tabs are not bent or sprung to prevent a
tight fit.
4. Not related to fuel loss but, Icing will clog the cap vent rather
quickly and could reduce or prevent fuel flow from the tanks.
#43 01/04/01
(MINOR) ROTAX 582LC OVERHEATING Engines have experienced overheating
due to radiator size and location. A couple cases of thermostat failures
have been reported. Engine overheat can result in engine seizure.
1. The original 582 radiator may be undersized for some climates and fail
to provide adequate cooling.
2. Lowering the smaller radiator
approximately 1" putting it more in the
airstream, have been reported to improve cooling.
3. Going to the Rotax 618 radiator (larger) has improved cooling.
4. There has been at least, one report were the thermostat body had
"broken" causing the thermostat to fail in the shut position. Suggest
periodic inspections for metal stress to the thermostat body and possible
replacement each conditional.
#42 01/03/01
(MINOR) INACCURACIES OF ENGINE TACHOMETERS Faulty reading engine
tachometers can result in premature engine wear or engine failure.
1. Tachometer accuracy can be affected by temperature, dirt, wear,
electrical
Interference, etc.
2. Check accuracy of tachometer at initial installation and periodically
thereafter to determine reliability.
3. Verify prop speed with an optical tach.
4. One such problem reported in the Aviasport electronic tachometer for
Rotax engine type 912, due to temperature variation.
#41 04/17/00
(MINOR) PROTECTION OF OPEN FUEL, WATER, ETC. LINES DURING CONSTRUCTION
During the construction phase of building, bugs, Spiders, and other
insects/animals may build nest or
Leave residue in open fuel, water, or other lines laying around with the
ends unprotected. This applies to openings in radiators, engines,
instruments and anyplace a small creature could take up residence.
1. Insure all lines, instrument openings, radiators, engine ports are taped
or bagged during the building
phase and even after installation on the aircraft.
2. Prior to final hook up, ensure lines are clear of any debris by blowing
out with an air compressor or some
other acceptable means.
#40 12/21/99
(MINOR) ELEVATOR HINGE PINS FALLING OUT Some elevator hinge pins have
"smaller" heads that
will fit through the elev/stab weldments. In these cases, the hinge pins
would require a "washer" on BOTH ends. Most are a tight fit and should not
come out but, in case of wear, the pins "could" work out and.
1. Cut down the weldment width a little until the
existing pins will be long enough to install a washer on both ends. OR,
2. Order new pins with a longer length that will take two washers.
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
Ted
Could you post a list or a file of all the KitfoxSafe items. I'd like
to have a look at all of them. I haven't been on the list that long and have
never seen the list.
Thanks,
Tim Vader
Calgary
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "QSS" <msm(at)byterocky.net> |
My sincere condolences Ron, I know time will help you come to terms with
your loss.
Regards
Graeme Toft
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ron schick
Sent: Monday, 4 December 2006 11:21 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: N914C
Now a search and recovery. Witnesses reported a straight in about 300
yards
offshore. I flew the coast more than an hour today and saw only sea
lions
and bubbles from the divers. Sonar arrives tommorow. Ron NB Ore
_________________________________________________________________
View Athletes Collections with Live Search
http://sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=MGA
C01
--
27/11/2006
--
27/11/2006
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Smythe" <dosmythe(at)cox.net> |
This is just a reminder to all list members that are seeing the
KITFOXSAFE items for the first. Back in the old days, we used to spend
a lot more time reporting problems and coming up with fixes on the list.
Each item is a result of beating problems to death and pulling out the
best of the recommended "opinions". So, this group of safety issues was
a result of the list members only with little to no input from Skystar.
All items were related to safety issues only. I guess we must have
fixed all the problems since we don't seem to see as many anymore.
Don Smythe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Failure Point |
As I recall, the aero tubing was offered when I ordered - late 1992, and it
was expensivce - the upgrade to a 1/4" fitting was offered after the reports
of breakage.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "PWilson" <pwmac(at)sisna.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Failure Point
>
> Testing my memory but didn't they offer the aero tubing and 1/4x28 rod
> ends. The
> up grade was very expensive.
> Paul
> ==============
> At 09:29 AM 12/3/2006, you wrote:
>>
>>Jerry,
>>
>>Apples and oranges here. The failure with wrestle had to do with the jack
>>screw in the larger models that trimmed the horizontal stabilizer. That
>>is what failed. It had nothing to do with the struts, though it is agreed
>>that the larger models the struts had been beefed up and possibly with the
>>use of accepted AN fittings.
>>
>>I remember two - maybe more of the rod ends - rather the stud going into
>>the rod ends - failing and it was discovered on the ground after a flight.
>>I don't recall if there was a "feeling" in flight, but it definitely was
>>not a wrestle. There was an upgrade offered, but I couldn't find a
>>Service Letter or Bulletin on the issue.
>>
>>Lowell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean(at)cableone.net> |
Ron,
Our prayers and thoughts are with you and your friends family.
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
208.337.5111
www.kitfoxaircraft.com
"It's not how Fast... It's how Fun!"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of ron schick
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 6:21 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: N914C
Now a search and recovery. Witnesses reported a straight in about 300 yards
offshore. I flew the coast more than an hour today and saw only sea lions
and bubbles from the divers. Sonar arrives tommorow. Ron NB Ore
_________________________________________________________________
View Athlete's Collections with Live Search
http://sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=MGAC01
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh(at)rapidnet.com> |
Don,
I know I speak for many others when I thank you for putting KIFOXSAFE
together. It was a lot of work for you to sort through all the discussion
to create a coherent report.
We are sad to see you leaving the ranks of Kitfox owners.
Randy
.
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Smythe
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:49 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: KITFOXSAFE
This is just a reminder to all list members that are seeing the KITFOXSAFE
items for the first. Back in the old days, we used to spend a lot more time
reporting problems and coming up with fixes on the list. Each item is a
result of beating problems to death and pulling out the best of the
recommended "opinions". So, this group of safety issues was a result of the
list members only with little to no input from Skystar. All items were
related to safety issues only. I guess we must have fixed all the problems
since we don't seem to see as many anymore.
Don Smythe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jimmie Blackwell" <JimmieBlackwell(at)austin.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oil Filters for 912UL |
John
I appreciate the information on the NAPA filter. Would be interesting
to know how many compression strokes you need to turn your engine to get
a burp from the oil tank.
To help protect an information source I would rather not post this on
the
list. Following is some information and observations I have made.
This issue involves the newer black Rotax oil filters. An inside source
told me that Rotax had stopped selling the black oil filters because
someone
discovered that some of the filters did not have an anti-drain back
feature
. To verify this I called the order line at Lockwood to order a filter
and
was told that they had rejected the last shipment of oil filters from
Rotax
and would have new ones in a couple of weeks. The order line could
not/would not elaborate on the problem.
This causes me to have concern about the quality control at Rotax.
Additionally, without an anti-drain back function any debris inside the
filter could flow right back into the engine and we certainly don't want
that to happen. If anything is caught in the oil filter I want it to
stay
there.
Will also share my observation between the Rotax oil filter and the
Carquest
85056 oil filter. In the beginning when I acquired my plane I did two
oil
changes using the Carquest filter and noted that I had to turn my engine
through about 30 compression strokes to get a burp out of the oil tank
after
the engine sat idle for a few days. Then I changed to the Rotax filter
and
found that I now had to turn the engine through at least 100 compression
strokes to get a burp from the oil tank. In the last week I installed a
Carquest filter and once again note that 30 compression strokes will get
a
burp from the oil tank even after the engine sat idle for 4 days. I
realize
there is an issue about bypass pressure of the Carquest or any other
filter
other than Rotax. Hopefully, in the near future I will be able to get
the
bypass pressure spec for the Rotax filter.
To Phil Lockwood's credit he called me and we discussed the issue of the
oil
filters. While he and I did not agree completely on the oil filters, my
opinion is that he is trying to do the right thing for his customers
while
staying within the boundaries he has to work
----- Original Message -----
From: JOHN May
To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Oil Filters for 912UL
Jimmie,
This is John May iin Kalamazoo Michigan. I have a Model IV-1200
Speedster with a Rotax 912UL (approx 735 Hours). I am the second owner (
I bought it at 500 Hours). The original owner/builder told me to use the
NAPA gold #1056 spin on oil filter. Every other oil change I have the
oil analysis done by Blackstone. The oil analysis up to this point has
always been in line with what is to be expected for its age. I want to
do what is best for the engine so I am interested in what you have found
out. John May
Jimmie Blackwell wrote:
In recent days I have done some research on oil filters and in
particular Rotax filters versus Carquest and Wix filters. The results
are
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | skyflyte(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Kitfox Load Testing |
Someone asked about Kitfox load testing and I found this picture in the 1992
Jan./Feb. issue of the Kitfox Times (the picture is small, 49.9KB). There is
no mention about the total load on the wings, but those bags of sand probably
weigh at least 100# each, maybe more! Since the date was 1992, I would think
this is the Model IV wing, not the clipped wing Speedster.
Mike Cannon
N490MC
Someone asked about Kitfox load testing and I found this picture
in the 1992 Jan./Feb. issue of the Kitfox Times (the picture is small, 49.9KB).
There is no mention about the total load on the wings, but those bags
of sand probably weigh at least 100# each, maybe more! Since the date
was 1992, I would think this is the Model IV wing, not the clipped wing Speedster.
Mike Cannon
N490MC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | engine preheater |
Awhile back I asked for some tips on how to preheat my S5 Subaru. The
Soob is a bit temperamental starting when the temp goes below 35f so I
asked for a heater that had a blower that worked off of 12v and was
small enough to carry with me in the airplane. Someone (thanks!) clued
me in on the Zodi tent heater
http://www.zodi.com/web-content/Consumer/zodihotvent.html so I bought
one and today it got its first test. It took one hour to get the engine
temp up to 50f from 22f. This is right out of the box with no mods or
anything. It retails for $149, but I paid $110+sh. Just shop around.
I saw where one went on ebay for $55, but I missed it. I just finished
ordering 10 feet of flex tube so I can move the unit a little farther
away from the airplane.
The nice thing about it is that it doubles for a tent heater, duh! :-)
Deke
Mikado Michigan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Daniels" <rick(at)rickdaniels.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox Load Testing |
more pictures of load testing at
www.kitfoxaircraft.com/Aircraft%20Kits.htm or log on to
Kitfoxaircraft.com and click on aircraft kits then at the bottom click
on testing information. Looks like the same picture but there are
several more.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JOHN May <jpm7940(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Oil Filters for 912UL |
Jimmie,
I will check out the number of compression strokes the next time I am at the
airport. Just to be sure I understand what you mean by "burp" I think you mean
the gurgleing noise it makes, is this correct? Do you mean when you first hear
the gurgle? I will have to check it out but my guess is that 30 is about right
for my filter also. The only time I turn the engine that many strokes is after
I change the oil and I am trying to make sure the system is filled before
I start it up. John May from Kalamazoo ( Model IV-1200 912 UL N48PN )
Jimmie Blackwell wrote:
John
I appreciate the information on the NAPA filter. Would be interesting to know
how many compression strokes you need to turn your engine to get a burp from
the oil tank.
To help protect an information source I would rather not post this on the
list. Following is some information and observations I have made.
This issue involves the newer black Rotax oil filters. An inside source
told me that Rotax had stopped selling the black oil filters because someone
discovered that some of the filters did not have an anti-drain back feature
. To verify this I called the order line at Lockwood to order a filter and
was told that they had rejected the last shipment of oil filters from Rotax
and would have new ones in a couple of weeks. The order line could
not/would not elaborate on the problem.
This causes me to have concern about the quality control at Rotax.
Additionally, without an anti-drain back function any debris inside the
filter could flow right back into the engine and we certainly don't want
that to happen. If anything is caught in the oil filter I want it to stay
there.
Will also share my observation between the Rotax oil filter and the Carquest
85056 oil filter. In the beginning when I acquired my plane I did two oil
changes using the Carquest filter and noted that I had to turn my engine
through about 30 compression strokes to get a burp out of the oil tank after
the engine sat idle for a few days. Then I changed to the Rotax filter and
found that I now had to turn the engine through at least 100 compression
strokes to get a burp from the oil tank. In the last week I installed a
Carquest filter and once again note that 30 compression strokes will get a
burp from the oil tank even after the engine sat idle for 4 days. I realize
there is an issue about bypass pressure of the Carquest or any other filter
other than Rotax. Hopefully, in the near future I will be able to get the
bypass pressure spec for the Rotax filter.
To Phil Lockwood's credit he called me and we discussed the issue of the oil
filters. While he and I did not agree completely on the oil filters, my
opinion is that he is trying to do the right thing for his customers while
staying within the boundaries he has to work
----- Original Message -----
From: JOHN May
To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Oil Filters for 912UL
Jimmie,
This is John May iin Kalamazoo Michigan. I have a Model IV-1200 Speedster with
a Rotax 912UL (approx 735 Hours). I am the second owner ( I bought it at 500
Hours). The original owner/builder told me to use the NAPA gold #1056 spin on
oil filter. Every other oil change I have the oil analysis done by Blackstone.
The oil analysis up to this point has always been in line with what is to be
expected for its age. I want to do what is best for the engine so I am interested
in what you have found out. John May
Jimmie Blackwell wrote:
In recent days I have done some research on oil filters and in particular
Rotax filters versus Carquest and Wix filters. The results are
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rexster" <runwayrex(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Search for oil leak |
Anybody know a procedure for locating an oil leak? Every time I fly
lately, there's a couple streaks coming out of my cowl. I cleaned the
engine and ran it for fifteen minutes to pinpoint the location, but
it wouldn't leak.
So I took it up and it leaked again, in the vacinity of the oil cooler,
sending unit, oil pump, gearbox etc. Next, I blocked off the overflow
line at the tank and put compressed air in the oil tank. Still no
leaks. Since the pump pressurizes the system to about 60 psi, am I
safe putting that amount in at the oil tank to test for leaks? The
engine is the 912 UL. I sure am open to new ideas. Thanks in advance,Rex
in Michigan
Anybody know a procedure for locating an oil leak? Every time I fly lately, there's a couple streaks coming out of my cowl. I cleaned the
engine and ran it for fifteen minutes to pinpoint the location, but
it wouldn't leak.
So I took it up and it leaked again, in the vac
inity of the oil cooler,
sending unit, oil pump, gearbox etc. Next,
I blocked off the overflow
line at the tank and put compressed air in
the oil tank. Still no
leaks. Since the pump pressurizes the system
to about 60 psi, am I
safe putting that amount in at the oil tank t
o test for leaks? The
engine is the 912 UL. I sure am open to new id
eas. Thanks in advance,
Rex in
Michigan