Kitfox-Archive.digest.vol-eh

December 21, 2006 - December 30, 2006



      >To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com
      >Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Older Kitfox setting RPM
      >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 22:48:02 EST
      >
      >I have a mod 2 and seem to have a wondering RPM  motor speed trimming  and
      >setting angel of attack seems like an endless task. what to  do?  582  gsc 
      >prop
      >Max 6200 on climb  mal michigan kitfoxer
      
      _________________________________________________________________
      Type your favorite song. Get a customized station. Try MSN Radio powered 
      by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 21, 2006
From: Jim Crowder <jimlc(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Kit Fox Tires only $2.50?
I note that these tires are rated for 730 lbs. maximum load. Would they be suitable for a Kitfox 5 which is one of the heavier Kitfoxes? Jim Crowder At 05:23 PM 12/21/2006, you wrote: >Rex, >The tires are our own brand King Fox Tires they are a >treadless tire 21"x12"x8" for more detail go to the >web page > >http://mipowerparachute.com/Tires.html ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Aerobatics(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 22, 2006
Subject: Re: Older Kitfox setting RPM
I have a 582 Blue head on a E box and IVO 3 Blade on my KF-2 . 6,800 is what Lockwood said it should be. I was asking because I was at 6,200 and was happy. They said I was giving up a lot of HP at 6,200. Took a bit of pitch out of my IVO and it went to 6,400 to 6,450. It was a big improvement. I havent changed it since. I might take some more pitch out someday... These 2 strokes are a bit peaky and like to rev. Easier on engine but this topic has been there before...:-) Personally, I think 6,400 to 6,800 is ideal. Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2006
From: Kevin Ridsdale <ksridsdale(at)mipowerparachute.com>
Subject: Re: Kit Fox Tires only $2.50?
Jim, The tire rating of 730 pounds is per tire your load would be distributed evenly over 2 tires. If enough force were to be placed on one tire greater than 730 pounds I would tend to believe you would end up with much greater problems. Kr --- Jim Crowder wrote: > > > I note that these tires are rated for 730 lbs. > maximum load. Would > they be suitable for a Kitfox 5 which is one of the > heavier Kitfoxes? > > Jim Crowder > > At 05:23 PM 12/21/2006, you wrote: > >Rex, > >The tires are our own brand King Fox Tires they are > a > >treadless tire 21"x12"x8" for more detail go to the > >web page > > > >http://mipowerparachute.com/Tires.html > > > > > Click on > about > provided > www.buildersbooks.com > Admin. > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
Subject: Re: Older Kitfox setting RPM
Date: Dec 22, 2006
Hey Dave, Are you setting for 6800 wide open straight and level ? and what are you getting static? I set mine with a combination of RPM , EGTS with needle adjustment as necessary. Fuel flow increases with Needle clip change. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: Aerobatics(at)aol.com To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 1:46 AM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Older Kitfox setting RPM I have a 582 Blue head on a E box and IVO 3 Blade on my KF-2 . 6,800 is what Lockwood said it should be. I was asking because I was at 6,200 and was happy. They said I was giving up a lot of HP at 6,200. Took a bit of pitch out of my IVO and it went to 6,400 to 6,450. It was a big improvement. I havent changed it since. I might take some more pitch out someday... These 2 strokes are a bit peaky and like to rev. Easier on engine but this topic has been there before...:-) Personally, I think 6,400 to 6,800 is ideal. Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
Subject: Re: Older Kitfox setting RPM
Date: Dec 22, 2006
Malcolm, a large part of the wandering trim and rpm is that the model II being so light and with a low torque motor results in low overall inertia. Very small air currents and bumps will affect it. Heavier airplanes with higher torque engines are much less prone to this. It's normal. Deke ----- Original Message ----- From: Malcolmbru(at)aol.com To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:48 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Older Kitfox setting RPM I have a mod 2 and seem to have a wondering RPM motor speed trimming and setting angel of attack seems like an endless task. what to do? 582 gsc prop Max 6200 on climb mal michigan kitfoxer ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Aerobatics(at)AOL.COM
Date: Dec 22, 2006
Subject: Re: Older Kitfox setting RPM
In a message dated 12/22/2006 6:34:09 A.M. Central Standard Time, dave(at)cfisher.com writes: Hey Dave, Are you setting for 6800 wide open straight and level ? and what are you getting static? I set mine with a combination of RPM , EGTS with needle adjustment as necessary. Fuel flow increases with Needle clip change. Dave 6,800 in a climb at 55 MPH. I will exceed VNE in level flight at WOT. As far as needle settings, its stock, unless its very hot or cold, then I might change it. Stock needle setting yields about 1050F in WOT climb. 1200F at 5,600 to 5,800 RPM cruise which is about 75 to 80 mph actual. The EGT climbs at cruise naturally at cruise. fuel flow is what it needs to be to keep EGT in proper range. I might add I have faired all lift struts, even the gas caps. It makes a big difference in speed. Running these 2 strokes is all about proper EGT and proper RPM. The final word is the color of the plug. I highly recommend consulting a good Rotax dealer. These 2 strokes may not be the most fuel efficient, but they have best power to weight! Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
Subject: Re: Older Kitfox setting RPM
Date: Dec 22, 2006
Dave, thanks for info. what is your vne ? I use GPS to get my speeds What is temperature you get those numbers at ? in cooler temps I would 1300F + running that fine on 582 . yes i strongly agree- trust your plugs. PS -- mine over 100 hours now on 582 got in 1.8 hours yesterday and still seem good . Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: Aerobatics(at)AOL.COM To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 9:39 AM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Older Kitfox setting RPM In a message dated 12/22/2006 6:34:09 A.M. Central Standard Time, dave(at)cfisher.com writes: Hey Dave, Are you setting for 6800 wide open straight and level ? and what are you getting static? I set mine with a combination of RPM , EGTS with needle adjustment as necessary. Fuel flow increases with Needle clip change. Dave 6,800 in a climb at 55 MPH. I will exceed VNE in level flight at WOT. As far as needle settings, its stock, unless its very hot or cold, then I might change it. Stock needle setting yields about 1050F in WOT climb. 1200F at 5,600 to 5,800 RPM cruise which is about 75 to 80 mph actual. The EGT climbs at cruise naturally at cruise. fuel flow is what it needs to be to keep EGT in proper range. I might add I have faired all lift struts, even the gas caps. It makes a big difference in speed. Running these 2 strokes is all about proper EGT and proper RPM. The final word is the color of the plug. I highly recommend consulting a good Rotax dealer. These 2 strokes may not be the most fuel efficient, but they have best power to weight! Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2006
From: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kit Fox Tires only $2.50?
Hi Jim, I think they are a little light weight for us -5 and up drivers. I know I don-t always land squarely on both tires and at 1 G, so I think they are a risk for us blowing a tire and doing more damage. Probably no problem for the 1200 and under guys though. Kurt S. --- Kevin Ridsdale wrote: > Jim, > The tire rating of 730 pounds is per tire your load > would be distributed evenly over 2 tires. If enough > force were to be placed on one tire greater than 730 > pounds I would tend to believe you would end up with > much greater problems. > Kr > --- Jim Crowder wrote: > > > I note that these tires are rated for 730 lbs. > > maximum load. Would > > they be suitable for a Kitfox 5 which is one of > the heavier Kitfoxes? > > > > Jim Crowder __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2006
From: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Ski installation
I Michel, You need to remember that the ski is flying in the air and not on it like on the snow. With the curve up, it acts like the top of a wing upside down and lifts down in front. Once it goes down a little, it will pull down hard because the axis is near the middle and not forward of the center of pressure, which is around 25% of the length. Merry Christmas, Kurt S. --- Michel Verheughe wrote: > That's when I started wondering how a ski can tilt > downward in flight. > My opinion is that the shape of the ski tip would > create an > aero-dynamic pressure upward and landing with a ski > pointing upward is > certainly not the same hazard as when pointing down. > > Cheers, > Michel __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Aerobatics(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 22, 2006
Subject: Re: Older Kitfox setting RPM
In a message dated 12/22/2006 9:13:40 A.M. Central Standard Time, dave(at)cfisher.com writes: Dave, thanks for info. what is your vne ? I use GPS to get my speeds What is temperature you get those numbers at ? in cooler temps I would 1300F + running that fine on 582 . yes i strongly agree- trust your plugs. PS -- mine over 100 hours now on 582 got in 1.8 hours yesterday and still seem good . Dave Well A GPS is a must for accurate #s Personally, my plugs would never see more than 50 hours, typically I change them around 30. They are cheap and I notice a small improvement in idle whenever I plug new ones in. I suggest following the Rotax manual. VNE is 100 I fly in East Central Illinois. About 100 Miles S of Chicago. We see a WIDE range of temp and Humidity. When flying cross country I fly at 5,000 ft or so. Local around 3,000. In cold weather, 30F to 0 F, obviously the EGT climb and in hot they drop. They highest I have seen is 1,350 at cruise. Raised the needle one notch and it dropped 50F. Personally I dont want to see over 1,300 ever. 1,200 to 1,250 is comfortable to me. I just took my engine to "theultralightplace.com" in Kankakee for its 300 hour medical. Doc Jim Leon said whatever your doing keep on doing it. He specializes in 582 and really knows these engines. So, for me, this combo seems to work well. Best Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>
Subject: Re: Ski installation
Date: Dec 22, 2006
Kurt- Does this mean that once the ski-equipped plane slows to landing speed...and the ski stops producing lift...that the ski will then return to the normal (bungees relaxed) position...about 15 up, as I read here? Lynn On Dec 22, 2006, at 11:24 AM, kurt schrader wrote: > > > I Michel, > > You need to remember that the ski is flying in the air > and not on it like on the snow. With the curve up, it > acts like the top of a wing upside down and lifts down > in front. Once it goes down a little, it will pull > down hard because the axis is near the middle and not > forward of the center of pressure, which is around 25% > of the length. > > Merry Christmas, > > Kurt S. > > --- Michel Verheughe wrote: > >> That's when I started wondering how a ski can tilt >> downward in flight. >> My opinion is that the shape of the ski tip would >> create an >> aero-dynamic pressure upward and landing with a ski >> pointing upward is >> certainly not the same hazard as when pointing down. >> >> Cheers, >> Michel > > __________________________________________________ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Jet Man
Date: Dec 22, 2006
For those of you YouTube watchers here is an amazing video of a guy who straps a wing on his back with several rocket engines bolted to it, and then zooms around the (Swiss?) countryside. Just amazing. Oh and it is on topic because the launch plane looks kind of like a Kitfox. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dST-a5IU_h4 Don Pearsall ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Malcolmbru(at)AOL.COM
Date: Dec 22, 2006
Subject: Re: setting RPM
Dee I have asked this question before but have never made any changes to prop or jetting I herd of egt,s around 1300 but fee that is high. Comfort levels are a very subjective. I wish I worried less and had moor fun flying. like the time you came to visit, I wanted you to fly my machine but when you said you had a migraine I got scared for you and my plain. mal ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
Subject: Re: setting RPM
Date: Dec 22, 2006
1300 is a bit too high Mal. Increase pitch or rejet. Shoot for 1200. Yeah, the headache was pretty bad that day. Could barely fly my own, let alone having to worry about yours. Deke I'm outta here for a few days. Merry Christmas everybody! ----- Original Message ----- From: Malcolmbru(at)aol.com To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 1:34 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: setting RPM Dee I have asked this question before but have never made any changes to prop or jetting I herd of egt,s around 1300 but fee that is high. Comfort levels are a very subjective. I wish I worried less and had moor fun flying. like the time you came to visit, I wanted you to fly my machine but when you said you had a migraine I got scared for you and my plain. mal ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Over-torqued GSC Prop
From: "Dwayne" <dwaynemccourt(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 22, 2006
Has anyone had any sucess in shimming an apparently over torqued GSC three blade on 912... ie; no gap, blades will start going out of pitch in 30-40 hours. Someone has likely been sucessful in shimming this prop. I know this may sound dangerous but it could be done safely too.... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83056#83056 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2006
From: Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com>
Subject: Re: Poly oil injection tank
At 10:49 AM 12/20/2006, you wrote: >Yesterday I noticed what appears as a crack in my Poly oil injection >tank. I'm not certain it's a crack but has all the good appearance >of one. Has anyone ever had one Don, What does your injection tank look like? I replaced mine before I flew because the old tank became brittle. Mine was a 2 liter rectangular Nalgene bottle. I got it on the web from U.S. Plastics, I think. Guy Buchanan K-IV/1200 w/ 582 C-box & Warp 3 blade ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2006
Subject: Coming to America (make education for glorious... )
From: "Colin Durey" <colin(at)ptclhk.com>
Hi Folks, I'm going to be delayed a bit more in putting the fabric on our KF IV, as I have just been told I'm going to the US for a quick trip in late January. I have to attend a meeting or two in Rhode Island (not sure of the city/town just yet)for a few days, plus visit a couple of sites in New York city and Washington DC, and possibly a couple of other locations on the east coast. I may have a day or so free at either end of the business bits, so if any of you live within/near Rhode Island, or a modest distance from Washington (say an hour's drive), I'd love to meet you and have a look at your plane. >From the posts I've read before, a few of you seem to live in the North West corner (Oregon and Washington State), and I may (emphasise may) be able to divert through there on the way back. If you are open to a visit from a fellow Kitfoxer from "the other side" (of the planet) let me know. When I'm sure of the exact dates and routes, I'll see what can be done to drop in briefly. Regards Colin Durey Sydney - Australia 0418-677073 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "flier" <flier(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Over-torqued GSC Prop
Date: Dec 22, 2006
I just ordered new blades from GSC as I've had my prop now for 10 years. The first question they asked when I inquired about the prop was whether there was a gap in between the hub halves. If there's not a gap, there's no question that the blades should be replaced. IMHO, don't screw around trying to shim. If the hub isn't holding the blades, replace the blades. Slinging a blade could end up killing you when the engine comes off. A set of 3 new blades is $450. Very cheap insurance. Regards, Ted -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dwayne Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 1:17 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Over-torqued GSC Prop Has anyone had any sucess in shimming an apparently over torqued GSC three blade on 912... ie; no gap, blades will start going out of pitch in 30-40 hours. Someone has likely been sucessful in shimming this prop. I know this may sound dangerous but it could be done safely too.... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83056#83056 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Aerobatics(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 22, 2006
Subject: Re: setting RPM
In a message dated 12/22/2006 12:38:30 P.M. Central Standard Time, Malcolmbru(at)aol.com writes: Dee I have asked this question before but have never made any changes to prop or jetting I herd of egt,s around 1300 but fee that is high. Comfort levels are a very subjective. I wish I worried less and had moor fun flying. like the time you came to visit, I wanted you to fly my machine but when you said you had a migraine I got scared for you and my plain. mal I believe Rotax wants 1,200F. I would like to add, indicated temp is like airspeed. The final word is the plugs. My Indicated Temps may or may not be accurate. I started off a bit cool (rich)... at 1150 F at cruise and the plugs showed cool... then went to factory settings and been there mostly since. Remember there are big differences from WOT and cruise temps as much as 200F cooler at WOT and this is on purpose... :-) Ho ho ho Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Aerobatics(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 22, 2006
Subject: Re: Jet Man
well kinda a kitfox LOL That's is AWESOME!! I want one!! I have heard of these before but it didn't climb.... wow Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Aerobatics(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 22, 2006
Subject: Re: Jet Man
I believe the plane is a Pilatus turbo Porter Good STOL if my memory serves me well... and it doesnt LOL Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ron schick" <roncarolnikko(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Over-torqued GSC Prop
Date: Dec 22, 2006
Might be better off milling, filling, or sanding off some of the aluminum at the parting edge. Ron NB Ore >From: "Dwayne" <dwaynemccourt(at)yahoo.com> >Reply-To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com >To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Kitfox-List: Over-torqued GSC Prop >Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:17:15 -0800 > > > Has anyone had any sucess in shimming an apparently over torqued GSC >three blade on 912... ie; no gap, blades will start going out of pitch in >30-40 hours. Someone has likely been sucessful in shimming this prop. I >know this may sound dangerous but it could be done safely too.... > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83056#83056 > > _________________________________________________________________ >From photos to predictions, The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes has it all. http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
Subject: Over-torqued GSC Prop-- Take out of service immediatly
Date: Dec 22, 2006
Dwayne, Call Rick Peters the owner if GSC at (250) 549-3772 or email him at info(at)ultralightprops.com I was just talking to Rick yesterday and I think he is shut down till Jan 3, but call or email to confirm. I would highly recommend that you take your prop out of service immediately. If you lose a blade you will destroy your engine mount and you could lose your engine and ....well you don't want that to happen. I have on mine a safety cable attached to engine and ties to fuselage under the dash. If that engine breaks free all that will be holding it on is the heater hose and fuel lines. Carbs will fly off. I have first hand experience in Prop departures in aircraft myself and have worked on others this year that have had the same. If the GSC alum hub halve blocks are touching that means that the root ends of the blades have been crushed. If crushed they will not only NOT hold the pitch in the hub but the grains of the hardwood have most likely have been compromised and you could be looking at failure at ANY time. Your choice , Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dwayne" <dwaynemccourt(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 2:17 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Over-torqued GSC Prop > > Has anyone had any sucess in shimming an apparently over torqued GSC three > blade on 912... ie; no gap, blades will start going out of pitch in 30-40 > hours. Someone has likely been sucessful in shimming this prop. I know > this may sound dangerous but it could be done safely too.... > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83056#83056 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Over-torqued GSC Prop
From: "crazyivan" <dmivezic(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 22, 2006
If the aluminum clam shells are touching then that means that the wooden blades have been crushed at their roots...very bad! Sanding, milling, shimming, or filing the aluminum will only make the prop more dangerous! Do not try to jerry-rig a fix. Remove it, send it to GSC, and have them evaluate it. Throwing a prop and crashing because you did your own make-shift maintenance is not only bad for your health and insurance premiums, but it is another argument people can make against experimental aircraft. -------- Dave Speedster 912 UL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83130#83130 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2006
From: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Ski installation
Hi Lynn, Well, you should ask someone with more ski experience than me. I can only address the aero theory here to say what "should" happen. In theory, there is no difference between theory and reality. In reality, there is often a big difference. Remember, a theory is just an opinion by someone who thinks they are important. You get that in schools. Experience rules. You get that in life. In neither case do I claim to be important, just still trying to do my best to help. In theory, I expect that the bungy would pull up to the relaxed position unless unbalanced ski weight or aerodymanic force pulls it into tension. If it is aerodynamically pulled tense, then some force with resulting drag is being applied. If I am right, the force on the bungy is a vector equal to the lift and drag applied. Threated just like a wind vector, the aft part of the bungy pull is = to drag. The verticle part is = to lift (down) which the wing must overcome. At landing speed and angle of attack you still have some lift and drag on the ski. What do you ski flyers actually see happen? Kurt S. S-5 --- Lynn Matteson wrote: > Kurt- > Does this mean that once the ski-equipped plane > slows to landing > speed...and the ski stops producing lift...that the > ski will then return to the normal (bungees relaxed) > position...about 15 up, as I read here? > > Lynn __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Malcolmbru(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 22, 2006
Subject: Re: setting RPM
If out side air temp is 40 degrees will the gage be reading 30 degrees hi or low?as 70 degrees is ambient. If the egt reads 1200 at 40 outside air temp what is actual egt temp? and how will ajusting the prop change this? mal ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2006
From: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Sealing NPT Threads against fuel
Thanks Nick, And just in case, I have been a good boy (mostly) this year Nick. :-) Merry Christmas to you all too. I'll add that reference to my KF info. Next year when I retire (Mar 10) I intend to redue my fuel system on my Fox as well as many other upgrades and will try your graphite paste. Kurt S. S-5 --- Nick Scholtes wrote: > Kurt, > > I'm not a plumber either, but I live on a farm and > we end up very often > becoming "jack of all trades" in some ways! > ............. > Anyway, about 10 years ago I found a product that > absolutely, > positively, works absolutely perfect to seal NPT > (tapered) pipe threads > against petroleum products. It is a thick black > graphite paste. I buy > it at McMaster-Carr supply company. If you want to > see it, go here: > http://www.mcmaster.com/ and search for this part > number: 4586K8, it's called "Key Graphite Paste". > > We have overhead fuel tanks to fuel up the tractors > and stuff, and there > are a bunch of joints on the tanks that connect the > filter to the hose > to the valve, etc. We've been using this graphite > paste on these NPT > fittings for 10 years and it really works, holds up > in weather and > everything, lasts forever. > > Best, > > Nick __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kfyellowbird(at)cs.com
Date: Dec 23, 2006
Subject: Re: Skis for Kitfox's
Lynn-Check out trickair.com. They make what you are looking for. Lowell N560KF ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Michel Verheughe <michel(at)online.no>
Subject: Re: Older Kitfox cruise speeds
Date: Dec 23, 2006
Hello Leni and Ron, On Dec 22, 2006, at 3:55 AM, ron schick wrote: > Hi Michel I think the undercamber in itself creates drag. Of course! But maybe I misunderstood what was in that scanned article. I understood that if Denney had used a lesser AoA at the fixation of the wing's root to the fuselage, the models 1, 2 and 3 would fly faster. And that is what I don't understand. But if I misread then ... I understand! :-) Happy holidays, Michel ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Michel Verheughe <michel(at)online.no>
Subject: Re: Ski installation
Date: Dec 23, 2006
On Dec 22, 2006, at 5:24 PM, kurt schrader wrote: > You need to remember that the ski is flying in the air > and not on it like on the snow. With the curve up, it > acts like the top of a wing upside down and lifts down > in front. Okay, I understand, Kurt. Hum, this was one of my concern when I first installed the skis. Was the bungee tight enough to keep the skis horizontal in flight? So, I opened the door, on the first test flight, and saw that the aft retaining cable was tight, then I thought it was okay and that the shape of the tip was aerodynamically holding the ski nose-up. Next time I install the skis (snow has first to come to Norway!) I will use a dynamometer to see how much the bungees pull. Cheers, Michel ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps(at)tznet.com>
Subject: Re: Ski installation
Date: Dec 22, 2006
If skis are rigged properly, with proper tension and proper springs or bungees, the tips will ALWAYS stay up in flight. Kitfoxes aren't capable of such high speeds that they can pull the ski tips down. If they do, they need heavier springs or bungees on the front cable. Paul Seehafer 300 hour ski pilot using Avid wheel penetrations skis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt(at)jps.net> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 11:11 AM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ski installation > > Kurt- > Does this mean that once the ski-equipped plane slows to landing > speed...and the ski stops producing lift...that the ski will then return > to the normal (bungees relaxed) position...about 15 up, as I read here? > > Lynn > On Dec 22, 2006, at 11:24 AM, kurt schrader wrote: > >> >> >> I Michel, >> >> You need to remember that the ski is flying in the air >> and not on it like on the snow. With the curve up, it >> acts like the top of a wing upside down and lifts down >> in front. Once it goes down a little, it will pull >> down hard because the axis is near the middle and not >> forward of the center of pressure, which is around 25% >> of the length. >> >> Merry Christmas, >> >> Kurt S. >> >> --- Michel Verheughe wrote: >> >>> That's when I started wondering how a ski can tilt >>> downward in flight. >>> My opinion is that the shape of the ski tip would >>> create an >>> aero-dynamic pressure upward and landing with a ski >>> pointing upward is >>> certainly not the same hazard as when pointing down. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Michel >> >> __________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps(at)tznet.com>
Subject: Re: Older Kitfox cruise speeds
Date: Dec 22, 2006
Michel, I'm not sure about your X-plane flight simulator, but if you check out books on the subject of aerodynamics and aircraft design it might clear this up for you better than I can. But I do think Leni did a pretty good job of explaining it. By getting the wing incidence out of wack it makes the tail have to compensate, and adds further drag. This whole scenario was played out somewhat years ago when Piper created their PA-12 Supercruiser. One of the things they did to make their new Fat supercub airframe fly faster was to reduce the amount of positive wing incidence. And it worked. Although they did lose a bit of the Supercub STOL performance. But not much. Today with the higher horsepower conversions done to both the PA-12 Supercruiser as well as the Supercub, you can hardly notice any STOL loss on the SuperCruiser. Somewhat similar to what we've experienced with the Kitfoxes. Paul Seehafer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel(at)online.no> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 3:14 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Older Kitfox cruise speeds > > On Dec 20, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Paul Seehafer wrote: >> Sure, the newer Kitfox (Riblett) airfoil helps to make the newer Kitfoxes >> cruise faster, but even if you were to put a new Riblett wing on an older >> Kitfox, my guess is you wouldn't see a lot of cruise speed increase, >> because there is just too much positive wing incidence causing a lot of >> drag. > > Hello Paul, > Since I read your email, yesterday, I have been thinking about this and I > just can't figure out how it works. From the X-Plane flight simulator, I > am used to make digital models. I don't know how it is done in real life > but I guess it is done in relation to a reference line. Let's say, a line > going from the prop hub to the end of the fuselage. From that, various > airfoils can be built, each with a different angle of attack. I think > angle of attack (AoA) is usually used as the angle to that reference line, > where angle of incidence is the actual angle made by the apparent wind and > the airfoil. > If we look at the AoA, we see that, as it increases, the coefficient of > lift and the coefficient of drag increase too. As speed increases and lift > increases to the square of the speed, one has to push the stick to keep > the plane at level flight. > Now, if the actual attachment of the wings' root to the fuselage is > different from one model to another, it means that, for the same speed, > one plane will fly with a slightly greater nose-down attitude. But how > does that influences the maximum speed you can achieve for a given engine > horse power? My understanding is that an airfoil has a constant lift/drag > ration for a given AoA. Did I miss something? > > Cheers, > Michel > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Dawe <davedawe(at)msn.com>
Subject: Over-torqued GSC Prop
Date: Dec 23, 2006
Merry Christmas to all! > Subject: Kitfox-List: Over-torqued GSC Prop> From: dwaynemccourt(at)yahoo.co m> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:17:15 -0800> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com> > s anyone had any sucess in shimming an apparently over torqued GSC three bl ade on 912... ie; no gap, blades will start going out of pitch in 30-40 hou rs. Someone has likely been sucessful in shimming this prop. I know this ma y sound dangerous but it could be done safely too....> > > > > Read this to pic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83056#830 ==================> > > _________________________________________________________________ http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e- 4911fb2b2e6d ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2006
From: Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com>
Subject: Re: Poly oil injection tank
At 10:04 PM 12/22/2006, you wrote: >Guy, > The largest of the bottles looks almost exactly like > mine. Sorry the site didn't give dimensions. It's probably the same. My original came from Skystar. I purchased it's replacement from US Plastics. I could not find the outlet that Skystar was gluing to the bottom of their bottle so I did some research and found a polyethylene bulkhead fitting for 1/4 NPT threads. I mounted this to the bottom of the bottle using 2-part polysulfide sealant. If you have access to plastic welding equipment you could weld a fitting to the bottom; much better. I've also recently discovered that there is such a thing as polyethylene adhesive that might enable you to bond a boss to the bottom. When I return home on the 4th I'll track down the source of my bulkhead fitting. I couldn't find it again on-line. Have a great Christmas Season! Guy Buchanan K-IV/1200 w/ 582 C-box & Warp 3 blade ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2006
From: Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com>
Subject: Re: Have a great Christmas, & 582 question
At 06:40 AM 12/23/2006, you wrote: >I have the standard analogue guages and was wondering about the >electronic versions. Any experiences? I have the Grand Rapids EIS. I like it a lot, as it gives warnings when my EGT peaks. I can't vouch for the reliability of even mine since I've only got 55 hours on it. Customer service was great, however, when I had trouble figuring out what wire to use for RPM. Oh yes, it's very easy to install, with clear instructions. Guy Buchanan K-IV/1200 w/ 582 C-box & Warp 3 blade ________________________________________________________________________________
From: nealscherm(at)comcast.net
Subject: GSC prop vs Ivo
Date: Dec 23, 2006
Hey all, I am looking at the Ivo and the GSC inflight adjustable props. Does anyone here have any experience between the two? I like the simplicity of the GSC but want the best cruise speed. Any input? Thanks, Neal
Hey all,
I am looking at the Ivo and the GSC inflight adjustable props. Does anyone here have any experience between the two?
I like the simplicity of the GSC but want the best cruise speed. Any input?
Thanks,
Neal

      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "john perry" <eskflyer(at)lvcisp.com>
Subject: Re: GSC prop vs Ivo
Date: Dec 23, 2006
Neal i love my IVO 68" 3 blade inflight adjustable prop ITS awsome . I could never get my 3 blade ground adjustable to perform like this IVO. . Now I do like the looks of the GSC better the wood is beautiful . In a water condition though like flying floats the IVO is much better . I have not tried the GSC inflight though. Good luck with your search for the rite prop . Merry Christmas everyone John Perry ----- Original Message ----- From: nealscherm(at)comcast.net To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 12:16 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: GSC prop vs Ivo Hey all, I am looking at the Ivo and the GSC inflight adjustable props. Does anyone here have any experience between the two? I like the simplicity of the GSC but want the best cruise speed. Any input? Thanks, Neal ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
Subject: Re: Have a great Christmas, & 582 question
Date: Dec 23, 2006
I have in the neighborhood of 350 hours on mine. No problems ever. Deke > >At 06:40 AM 12/23/2006, you wrote: >>I have the standard analogue guages and was wondering about the >>electronic versions. Any experiences? > >I have the Grand Rapids EIS. I like it a lot, as it gives warnings >when my EGT peaks. I can't vouch for the reliability of even mine >since I've only got 55 hours on it. Customer service was great, >however, when I had trouble figuring out what wire to use for RPM. Oh > >yes, it's very easy to install, with clear instructions. > >Guy Buchanan >K-IV/1200 w/ 582 C-box & Warp 3 blade > > WebMail Express+ - http://www.i-star.com Internet Access from $7.95 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Aerobatics(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 23, 2006
Subject: Re: Have a great Christmas, & 582 question EIS
I used to have one on another plane and totally I agree LOVED it.... I have steam gauges now and they work fine but the EIS was a great system... just hate to replace a good working system, but if I had a choice, the EIS would certainly be my choice Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "john perry" <eskflyer(at)lvcisp.com>
Subject: Re: Skis for Kitfox's
Date: Dec 23, 2006
40LBS of skis for $3600. yes three thousand six hundread big ones . I dont think so . these are for the so called certified aircraft . Now if they got them down to around 10 pounds each and a reasonable 500 bucks then they would probably be worth the money . If you read on the website after certification the price is going up more, what a rip off . I wish the company well in there endevores Merry Christmas everyone John Perry ----- Original Message ----- From: Kfyellowbird(at)cs.com To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 11:25 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skis for Kitfox's Lynn-Check out trickair.com. They make what you are looking for. Lowell N560KF ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GSC prop vs Ivo
From: "crazyivan" <dmivezic(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 23, 2006
Look at the list topic I started last month for my numbers. IVO is a great prop, but that is in comparison to a 10 year old GSC. http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=17756 -------- Dave Speedster 912 UL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83309#83309 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GSC prop vs Ivo
From: "Joel" <foxfloatflyer(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 23, 2006
If you have a 100hp Rotax engine don't use the Warp Drive blades with the GSC / GTA in-flight adjustable pitch prop as per Daryl with Warp Drive. If you have the 80hp 912 and are interested in the GTA / Warp Drive combination please contact me off list. -------- Joel Mapes Kitfox 5 912 ULS Aerocomp amphibs Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83312#83312 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Malcolmbru(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 23, 2006
Subject: Re: cruise speeds universe?
you may want to be careful with your analogy fly, s and all. we had a guy around for a while talking about blue coolaid and we finely had to chase him off. mal ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like this
?
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 23, 2006
Here are some pictures of the prop spacer that goes from my Rotax 912-S to the Kiev Hot Prop. It is made out of aluminum and the shaft is tapered to only two inches at its narrow point. This setup is on a Kolb pusher, but many Kitfoxes use the same class engines and props, so im hoping someone here might know the answer to this. All the spacers I have ever seen have the prop bolts go all the way through from the prop hub to the steel engine output flange. With this spacer the entire load is transmitted to the prop through 2 inches of aluminum. After reading stories of high streingth bolts breaking on occasion, I am wonding how just 2 inches of aluminum could be safe to transmit 100 HP to the prop. Has anyone ever seen a prop adapter / spacer like this ? Is this very likely to fail and let the entire prop fly into the back of my Kolb ? Would you guys trust this ? Any thought you may have would be appreciated. Michael A. Bigelow -------- "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83331#83331 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/ultralightmikekolbpropspacer12_19_2006_41_104.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/ultralightmikekolbdetail12_20_2006_112_208.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "JC Propellerdesign" <propellerdesign(at)tele2.se>
Subject: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like
this ?
Date: Dec 24, 2006
In General it is not the bolt that prevent the flange, prop or hub extension to move relative to each other it is the friction between them from the squeezing effect of the bolts, if the torque of the bolts is not enough the bolts will be sheered off in a short time. The small diameter of the hub extension is a different issue, it have to be analyzed and tested on each engine that take it. it is a big different from a 912 and 912 -S the torque of engine isn't the big thing here but torsion vibrations, and the -S is reported to be hard in this respect, there is additional items to add to the gearbox, making it a little better, but it is an option. Jan Carlsson jcpropellerdesign ----- Original Message ----- From: JetPilot To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 5:54 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like this ? Here are some pictures of the prop spacer that goes from my Rotax 912-S to the Kiev Hot Prop. It is made out of aluminum and the shaft is tapered to only two inches at its narrow point. This setup is on a Kolb pusher, but many Kitfoxes use the same class engines and props, so im hoping someone here might know the answer to this. All the spacers I have ever seen have the prop bolts go all the way through from the prop hub to the steel engine output flange. With this spacer the entire load is transmitted to the prop through 2 inches of aluminum. After reading stories of high streingth bolts breaking on occasion, I am wonding how just 2 inches of aluminum could be safe to transmit 100 HP to the prop. Has anyone ever seen a prop adapter / spacer like this ? Is this very likely to fail and let the entire prop fly into the back of my Kolb ? Would you guys trust this ? Any thought you may have would be appreciated. Michael A. Bigelow -------- "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83331#83331 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/ultralightmikekolbpropspacer12_19_2006 _41_104.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/ultralightmikekolbdetail12_20_2006_112 _208.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 24, 2006
From: Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com>
Subject: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like
this ? At 08:54 PM 12/23/2006, you wrote: >Has anyone ever seen a prop adapter / spacer like this ? Is this >very likely to fail and let the entire prop fly into the back of my >Kolb ? Would you guys trust this ? Any thought you may have would be >appreciated. It looks nicely made, with adequate radii. Certainly the engine-side flange looks big enough! I would guess it's turned from billet but Clem's right, the material is important. Jan's right too, that the static thrust and torque loads are generally insignificant in the design of drive components. Much more important are the loads resulting from harmonic amplification of the engine's natural torque pulses. Given the right combination of engine / spacer / prop it is possible to generate enough resonance to be a problem. In the certificated world there are some engine / prop combinations which are forbidden for just this reason. Others have cautionary operating regions where resonances occur that are harmful, but not catastrophically so. The answer to your question is that the spacer can only be considered "safe" if your exact engine / spacer / prop combination has been tested, either on the bench, or in flight, for a given number of hours. (The airframe might also contribute to the response, but these engines are typically so softly mounted that you might be able to discount the airframe. Certainly any test will want to use a similar mounting system so the engine vibrates similarly to your aircraft.) The spacer could then be considered "safe" up to, and only up to, some fraction of that number of hours. If you can find no such testing then, guess what, YOU'RE THE TEST PILOT! Neat, huh? Looking at your spacer, and based on my experience in the world of recreational engineering, (that's engineering FOR the recreational industry, not engineering AS recreation,) a really good designer would start with the 912 output shaft dimensions. If they were really, really good they might do some hardness testing of that shaft to estimate its hardness. They then could design an aluminum "shaft" by similarity to give equivalent fatigue life. Unfortunately this design would completely ignore any system resonance modification induced by the spacer. And more unfortunately, the aluminum spacer will act as a relatively low frequency spring with negligible damping, capable of dramatically increasing the system resonance. I suppose a really, really, really good engineer would mount the stock engine / prop combo and run it festooned with accelerometers in an attempt to determine the system harmonics. They could then install the spacer and confirm the system response was NO WORSE across the entire operating range of the engine. You could then feel confident the spacer had not decreased the reliability of the system FOR THAT ENGINE / SPACER / PROP COMBINATION. You would, of course, have to run this test for every engine / prop combo. Finally note that I have quite obviously neglected the increase bending loads in the 912 output shaft caused by the increased prop offset. This works to reduce the fatigue life of the output shaft and bearings, particularly if the prop is not perfectly balanced. You would definitely want to make sure your system was dynamically balanced fairly often to mitigate this detriment. I've given you all this information mostly because I like to hear myself talk, ;-) but also to give you some questions to ask the spacer's designer. It's even odds you're operating as a test pilot. What do you do then? First you get parachutes for you and your passengers. (A BRS obviously counts.) Then you always fly high enough to use them. (You'll be at risk during take-off and landing.) Then you decide how long you want to do the test. To do that you note that you're going to replace a big chunk of the Rotax output system plus the spacer at some hours interval. (Let's say the output shaft, bearings, and spacer.) The cost of that replacement will help you determine how many hours you want to run between replacements. (Note that you don't get to fly up to the number of hours you tested, but only to a fraction of those hours to account for variations in fatigue life. What's the fraction? I don't know off the top of my head, but we could probably come up with a conservative value with some investigation.) Now I'd really better shut-up. Good luck! Guy Buchanan K-IV/1200 w/ 582 C-box & Warp 3 blade ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
Subject: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen
one like this ?
Date: Dec 24, 2006
What does this have to do with Kitfox ? Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 11:54 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like this ? > > Here are some pictures of the prop spacer that goes from my Rotax 912-S to > the Kiev Hot Prop. It is made out of aluminum and the shaft is tapered to > only two inches at its narrow point. This setup is on a Kolb pusher, but > many Kitfoxes use the same class engines and props, so im hoping someone > here might know the answer to this. > > All the spacers I have ever seen have the prop bolts go all the way > through from the prop hub to the steel engine output flange. With this > spacer the entire load is transmitted to the prop through 2 inches of > aluminum. After reading stories of high streingth bolts breaking on > occasion, I am wonding how just 2 inches of aluminum could be safe to > transmit 100 HP to the prop. Has anyone ever seen a prop adapter / spacer > like this ? Is this very likely to fail and let the entire prop fly into > the back of my Kolb ? Would you guys trust this ? Any thought you may have > would be appreciated. > > Michael A. Bigelow > > -------- > "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you > could have !!! > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83331#83331 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/ultralightmikekolbpropspacer12_19_2006_41_104.jpg > http://forums.matronics.com//files/ultralightmikekolbdetail12_20_2006_112_208.jpg > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Grant Bright" <gbright(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: A Christmas Wish from Grant Bright
Date: Dec 24, 2006
May Santa grant you the serenity to accept the gifts you cannot return, the courage to exchange the presents you can, and the receipts to know the difference! Merry Christmas ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe(at)cox.net>
Subject: Kitfox to look at
Date: Dec 24, 2006
All, I have a person interested in my Fox. He is 6'3" @240#. He is located in Orem Utah (about 30 miles south of Salt Lake City) and has never really seen a kitfox. He is willing to travel up to 150 miles to look/sit/possibly fly in a Kitfox. Is there anyone in that area that could give the guy a look and at least let him sit in one. Quite frankly, I told him not to even consider purchasing a Kitfox or anything else until he could at least see one. He's operating on the Kitfox reputation only. Thanks, Don Smythe ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 24, 2006
From: "Larry Martin" <CrownLJ(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Have a great Christmas,
Dave, I have been using the EMS -582 for several years now and can highly recommend it as a less expensive choice than the EIS. http://www.sportflyingshop.com/Instr/Stratomaster/SmartSingles/smartsingl es.html Merry Christmas larry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols(at)scrtc.com>
Subject: Painting Alclad aluminum
Date: Dec 24, 2006
What type of surface preparation is necessary before applying paint to 2024 Alclad aluminum? Clem Nichols ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "noel anderson" <nandrand(at)xtra.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever
seen one like this ?
Date: Dec 25, 2006
It has to do with safety..... even KF's have to be safe!!!!! Fly Safe Noel ----- Original Message ----- From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com> Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 6:48 AM Subject: ? ? ? Re: Kitfox-List: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like this ? > > What does this have to do with Kitfox ? > > Dave > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> > To: > Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 11:54 PM > Subject: Kitfox-List: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one > like this ? > > >> >> Here are some pictures of the prop spacer that goes from my Rotax 912-S >> to the Kiev Hot Prop. It is made out of aluminum and the shaft is tapered >> to only two inches at its narrow point. This setup is on a Kolb pusher, >> but many Kitfoxes use the same class engines and props, so im hoping >> someone here might know the answer to this. >> >> All the spacers I have ever seen have the prop bolts go all the way >> through from the prop hub to the steel engine output flange. With this >> spacer the entire load is transmitted to the prop through 2 inches of >> aluminum. After reading stories of high streingth bolts breaking on >> occasion, I am wonding how just 2 inches of aluminum could be safe to >> transmit 100 HP to the prop. Has anyone ever seen a prop adapter / spacer >> like this ? Is this very likely to fail and let the entire prop fly into >> the back of my Kolb ? Would you guys trust this ? Any thought you may >> have would be appreciated. >> >> Michael A. Bigelow >> >> -------- >> "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you >> could have !!! >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83331#83331 >> >> >> >> >> Attachments: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com//files/ultralightmikekolbpropspacer12_19_2006_41_104.jpg >> http://forums.matronics.com//files/ultralightmikekolbdetail12_20_2006_112_208.jpg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "QSS" <msm(at)byterocky.net>
Subject: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever
seen one like this ?
Date: Dec 25, 2006
Hi Dave, I have a friend with an Australian Light Wing. (Not as good as a Kitfox :) and he has the same prop with a 2" spacer also. As an indication of their ability to do the job, he hit a cow that ran into his takeoff role and he hit it smack bang in the rear end. It completely destroyed the Kiev as they are a foam filed hollow prop but the spacer was returned to service without a blemish. Regards Graeme ----- Original Message ----- From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com> Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 3:48 AM Subject: ? ? ? Re: Kitfox-List: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like this ? > > What does this have to do with Kitfox ? > > Dave > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> > To: > Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 11:54 PM > Subject: Kitfox-List: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one > like this ? > > >> >> Here are some pictures of the prop spacer that goes from my Rotax 912-S >> to the Kiev Hot Prop. It is made out of aluminum and the shaft is tapered >> to only two inches at its narrow point. This setup is on a Kolb pusher, >> but many Kitfoxes use the same class engines and props, so im hoping >> someone here might know the answer to this. >> >> All the spacers I have ever seen have the prop bolts go all the way >> through from the prop hub to the steel engine output flange. With this >> spacer the entire load is transmitted to the prop through 2 inches of >> aluminum. After reading stories of high streingth bolts breaking on >> occasion, I am wonding how just 2 inches of aluminum could be safe to >> transmit 100 HP to the prop. Has anyone ever seen a prop adapter / spacer >> like this ? Is this very likely to fail and let the entire prop fly into >> the back of my Kolb ? Would you guys trust this ? Any thought you may >> have would be appreciated. >> >> Michael A. Bigelow >> >> -------- >> "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you >> could have !!! >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83331#83331 >> >> >> >> >> Attachments: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com//files/ultralightmikekolbpropspacer12_19_2006_41_104.jpg >> http://forums.matronics.com//files/ultralightmikekolbdetail12_20_2006_112_208.jpg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > 22/12/2006 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: nealscherm(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Painting Alclad aluminum
Date: Dec 24, 2006
Hey Clem, I would suggest using Scotchbrite green pads, then clean with solvent or soap and warm water and then use an etching primer. I like DuPont's best..... Neal -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols(at)scrtc.com> What type of surface preparation is necessary before applying paint to 2024 Alclad aluminum? Clem Nichols
Hey Clem,
I would suggest using Scotchbrite green pads, then clean with solvent or soap and warm water and then use an etching primer. I like DuPont's best.....
Neal
 
What type of surface preparation is necessary before applying paint to 2024 Alclad aluminum?
 
Clem Nichols

      
      
      

      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: nealscherm(at)comcast.net
Subject: Auto pilot in a 5-7
Date: Dec 25, 2006
Has anyone installed an autopilot in a series 5 or later? What brand? Any pictures of the installation? Merry Christmas, Neal
Has anyone installed an autopilot in a series 5 or later? What brand? Any pictures of the installation?
Merry Christmas,
Neal

      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: nealscherm(at)comcast.net
Subject: FW: Kitfox List
Date: Dec 25, 2006
Merry Christmas to the Kitfox Family and Friends !! The New Year is going to be very exciting !! John & Debra McBean Kitfox Aircraft
Merry Christmas to the Kitfox Family and Friends !!
The New Year is going to be very exciting !!
John & Debra McBean
Kitfox Aircraft
 

      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2006
Subject: 2006!
From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor(at)online.no>
Hi, Dear Kitfox Friend! Suddenly -a year is past -almost, oh., how fast the times go by.. Here's a little picture of me, (that) I did not know about, -shot by my son in May this year.. You see, I'm ready for the first flight..... Now, take care, every one of you- and fly safe. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everyone of You. Best regards Torgeir. Pan, Pan, Pan.... Also, a special greetings, to my friend in the south of Norway, Michel. (Ok., here's a link to a special site, in the North ... http://www.kvalsund.kommune.no/index.php?cat=37032&id=0&pf=19926&f older=19927 Enjoy the pictures and see my place; "the years picture of a Fox" shot b y Paal Reidar Fredriksen, -yes this is from my place, just a couple miles North... I'll got the link to this site yesterday, from one of my best friend, I haven't seen for years (who shot all this pictures).) -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2006
From: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: FW: Kitfox List
Yes, MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU ALL And many thanks to you and your's John, for grabbing the bull by the horns and driving KitFox's into the future. You stepped up when we needed you.... :-) Kurt S. --- nealscherm(at)comcast.net wrote: > Merry Christmas to the Kitfox Family and Friends !! > The New Year is going to be very exciting !! > John & Debra McBean > Kitfox Aircraft __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2006
From: n10pg(at)neo.rr.com
Subject: Re: Auto pilot in a 5-7
Hi Neal: Merry Christmas. For my Navaid Devices autopilot installation, please go to my web page at http://home.neo.rr.com/n10pg/kitfox.htm Go to photo gallery, last row of pictures, next to last Peter Graichen ----- Original Message ----- From: nealscherm(at)comcast.net Date: Sunday, December 24, 2006 7:03 pm Subject: Kitfox-List: Auto pilot in a 5-7 > Has anyone installed an autopilot in a series 5 or later? What > brand? Any pictures of the installation? > Merry Christmas, > Neal ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: GSC prop vs Ivo
Date: Dec 25, 2006
I have the Ivo UL. mostly because the "B" box on my 582 doesn't have the hollow drive tube the GSC requires. I think you will find the GSC is a significantly heavier more durable prop. There is also the added security of not having open brushes on the prop hub. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of nealscherm(at)comcast.net Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 2:47 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: GSC prop vs Ivo Hey all, I am looking at the Ivo and the GSC inflight adjustable props. Does anyone here have any experience between the two? I like the simplicity of the GSC but want the best cruise speed. Any input? Thanks, Neal ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "john perry" <eskflyer(at)lvcisp.com>
Subject: Merry Christmas
Date: Dec 25, 2006
May you all have a wonderfull Happy Safe Merry CHRISTMAS , and a Healthy Wealthy lots of flying hours New Year. Cheers Merry Christmas John Perry and family ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2006
From: John Seely <seelyjo(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox to look at
Hi Don, We have a lite squared based 60 miles south of orem in Mt Pleasant. We have flown into provo many times. You can get a hold of me on my cell phone #801-368-7530. If you call me I'm sure we can work something out. John Seely Don Smythe wrote: All, I have a person interested in my Fox. He is 6'3" @240#. He is located in Orem Utah (about 30 miles south of Salt Lake City) and has never really seen a kitfox. He is willing to travel up to 150 miles to look/sit/possibly fly in a Kitfox. Is there anyone in that area that could give the guy a look and at least let him sit in one. Quite frankly, I told him not to even consider purchasing a Kitfox or anything else until he could at least see one. He's operating on the Kitfox reputation only. Thanks, Don Smythe __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Malcolmbru(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 25, 2006
Subject: Re: Kitfox inUtah
do you know a old gezer called tex he ran a white river Rafting guid on the colorado river his last plain was a Just aircraft I herd he died ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ? ? ? Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen o
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 26, 2006
Graeme Toft wrote: > Hi Dave, I have a friend with an Australian Light Wing. (Not as good as a > Kitfox :) and he has the same prop with a 2" spacer also. As an indication > of their ability to do the job, he hit a cow that ran into his takeoff role > and he hit it smack bang in the rear end. It completely destroyed the Kiev > as they are a foam filed hollow prop but the spacer was returned to service > without a blemish. > > Regards > Graeme > > --- That is good to hear, is your friend running a 912-S on that Light wing ??? I was hoping to find more of those in use out there on similar engines, if so others have already tested it and im not the first one. Was the Cow returned to service also ? JettPilot -------- "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83568#83568 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like
this
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 26, 2006
Thanks for the response Guy, The spacer is very close to the same size as the 912-S Gearbox output shaft, but the sapcer is aluminum, and the shaft is hardened steel, so im sure that the spacer is the weak point in the system. What mkes it even worse, unlike a Kitfox, on my pusher Kolb the prop will fly into my wing if the spacer breaks, most likely rendering it uncontrollable as the aileron actuator tubes are on the trailing edge of the wing. If I'm really having a bad day, the rotating prop might even cut my tail boom in half which is a couple inches below :x The good news is that the Kiev prop is much lighter than the Warp Drive props are. Kiev Props are well within Rotax Specs for rotational mass on the output shaft. You seem to know a lot about this, I think the material is milled billet, but I am not sure. It was expensive.... Bottom line, given what you know about materials, would you fly this, or test fly it ? If it lets go, its much more than an engine out, It would surely create an opportunity to test my BRS ! JettPilot -------- "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83569#83569 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ken Harrison" <kenharrison(at)ubgcharlotte.com>
Subject: Kitfox III - New Builder - Need Help
Date: Dec 26, 2006
Hello all, I have purchased a Kitfox Model III unfinished, and am wondering if there is any possibility of finding a complete builders manual anywhere. I have bits and pieces, but I'm concerned I'll miss something very important. Also, I am in need of a few items for the kit and would appreciate any help. If any of you have any of these for sale please let me know. 1. I basically need an entire 582 firewall forward package for the Model III. 2. Of course if I can't find an entire package, I'll need an engine mount for starters. Is that something that is still being fabricated, or will I have to find a used one? 3. "Bumps" engine cowling for Model III. 4. Header tank. 5. Firewall. If I can't find one, is it possible to obtain the dimensions of all those parts that go into the firewall so I can fabricate it? 6. Throttle assembly parts to convert verner throttle motion to the Rotax cable motion. My frame has the tangs but I don't have those parts. 7. Can you tell me the AN designation, or where to obtain the isolation mounts that hold the instrument panel. My assembly manual assumes you have the parts from the kit and does not list what they are. 8. Also, I see lots of parts out there for the Model IV. Can anyone tell me if the engine mount holes on the fuselage are the same for the III and IV. Is the cowling the same for III and IV? Thanks so much for any help and I look forward to the build. Ken Harrison Kitfox III Rotax 582 75% Done Lancaster, SC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: kerrjohna(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox to look at
Date: Dec 26, 2006
Don, I am located in Logan--a 100 miles north of Orem. I would be happy to show him my model IV and give him a ride. John Kerr -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe(at)cox.net> > > All, > > I have a person interested in my Fox. He is 6'3" @240#. He is located > in Orem Utah (about 30 miles south of Salt Lake City) and has never really > seen a kitfox. He is willing to travel up to 150 miles to look/sit/possibly > fly in a Kitfox. Is there anyone in that area that could give the guy a > look and at least let him sit in one. Quite frankly, I told him not to even > consider purchasing a Kitfox or anything else until he could at least see > one. He's operating on the Kitfox reputation only. > > Thanks, > > Don Smythe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Don, I am located in Logan--a 100 miles north of Orem.  I would be happy to show him my model IV and give him a ride.
 
John Kerr
 

> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe"
>
> All,
>
> I have a person interested in my Fox. He is 6'3" @240#. He is located
> in Orem Utah (about 30 miles south of Salt Lake City) and has never really
> seen a kitfox. He is willing to travel up to 150 miles to look/sit/possibly
> fly in a Kitfox. Is there anyone in that area that could give the guy a
> look and at least let him sit in one. Quite frankly, I told him not to even
> consider purchasing a Kitfox or anything else until he could at least see
> one. He's operating on the Kitfox reputation only.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Don Smythe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
&g

      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 26, 2006
From: Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com>
Subject: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one
like this At 07:31 AM 12/26/2006, you wrote: >The spacer is very close to the same size as the 912-S Gearbox >output shaft, but the sapcer is aluminum, and the shaft is hardened >steel, so im sure that the spacer is the weak point in the system. Really. The spacer looks so much larger in the picture. The strength and stiffness varies as the radius to the fourth power, so any increase is quite significant. >What mkes it even worse, unlike a Kitfox, on my pusher Kolb the prop >will fly into my wing if the spacer breaks, most likely rendering it >uncontrollable as the aileron actuator tubes are on the trailing >edge of the wing. If I'm really having a bad day, the rotating prop >might even cut my tail boom in half which is a couple inches below :x I guess it's a good thing you've got the BRS. >The good news is that the Kiev prop is much lighter than the Warp >Drive props are. Kiev Props are well within Rotax Specs for >rotational mass on the output shaft. You seem to know a lot about >this, I think the material is milled billet, but I am not sure. It >was expensive.... Bottom line, given what you know about materials, >would you fly this, or test fly it ? If it lets go, its much more >than an engine out, It would surely create an opportunity to test my BRS ! No, I wouldn't "test" fly it. I'm just too much of a coward. I suppose that if I had to use it I would do the engineering I suggested, even finding a way to do the vib testing. I have a background in structural dynamics and structural analysis, enough to know I could never verify the integrity of your spacer without some vibration testing. Do not be put off, however, as such testing is possible today even at a "hobby" level. (I'll bet Lowell could do it, with a little help.) Remember that all you're trying to do is verify that your system response is no worse with the spacer. Thus you don't need accuracy, merely precision, which is a lot easier. Our usual method when designing something like this, where we had a lot of unknowns, was to make the addition as system independent as possible. In the case of this spacer it would mean trying to make it dramatically stiffer and somewhat stronger than the output shaft. You could use a large diameter steel weldment with some clean-up machining, or if you wanted to double the price of your Kolb, use titanium. Even the aluminum piece could have been designed a lot stiffer and stronger by making it maximum diameter and hollow. It wouldn't be as easy to machine, nor as easy to install, though. I wish I could offer you more. I really hate to question something, to degrade your flying enjoyment, to "piss in your Cheerios" as the Aussies like to say. Please contact the designer. Hopefully they will be able to set your mind to rest and keep you care-free in the air. Guy Buchanan K-IV/1200 w/ 582 C-box & Warp 3 blade ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Kitfox III - New Builder - Need Help
Date: Dec 26, 2006
The owners of Kitfox LLC. are members of this group. Keep reading the mail no doubt a reply form John Mc Bean will show up soon..... I think it's fair to say if he doesn't have it, you won't need it. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken Harrison Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:20 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox III - New Builder - Need Help Hello all, I have purchased a Kitfox Model III unfinished, and am wondering if there is any possibility of finding a complete builders manual anywhere. I have bits and pieces, but I'm concerned I'll miss something very important. Also, I am in need of a few items for the kit and would appreciate any help. If any of you have any of these for sale please let me know. 1. I basically need an entire 582 firewall forward package for the Model III. 2. Of course if I can't find an entire package, I'll need an engine mount for starters. Is that something that is still being fabricated, or will I have to find a used one? 3. "Bumps" engine cowling for Model III. 4. Header tank. 5. Firewall. If I can't find one, is it possible to obtain the dimensions of all those parts that go into the firewall so I can fabricate it? 6. Throttle assembly parts to convert verner throttle motion to the Rotax cable motion. My frame has the tangs but I don't have those parts. 7. Can you tell me the AN designation, or where to obtain the isolation mounts that hold the instrument panel. My assembly manual assumes you have the parts from the kit and does not list what they are. 8. Also, I see lots of parts out there for the Model IV. Can anyone tell me if the engine mount holes on the fuselage are the same for the III and IV. Is the cowling the same for III and IV? Thanks so much for any help and I look forward to the build. Ken Harrison Kitfox III Rotax 582 75% Done Lancaster, SC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean(at)cableone.net>
Subject: FW: Kitfox List
Date: Dec 26, 2006
We seemed to have had an issue with emailing to the list although we are receiving the emails just fine Hope fully this issue is resolved. I had asked Neal to forward the Holiday wishes. We hope that everyone had a GREAT Christmas and will have a SAFE New Year ! Hope this one makes it to the list. 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 nealscherm(at)comcast.net Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 9:47 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: FW: Kitfox List Merry Christmas to the Kitfox Family and Friends !! The New Year is going to be very exciting !! John & Debra McBean Kitfox Aircraft -- 12:23 PM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Kitfox III - New Builder - Need Help
Date: Dec 26, 2006
Ken, We can help you. Give us a shout 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 Ken Harrison Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:50 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox III - New Builder - Need Help Hello all, I have purchased a Kitfox Model III unfinished, and am wondering if there is any possibility of finding a complete builders manual anywhere. I have bits and pieces, but Im concerned Ill miss something very important. Also, I am in need of a few items for the kit and would appreciate any help. If any of you have any of these for sale please let me know. 1. I basically need an entire 582 firewall forward package for the Model III. 2. Of course if I cant find an entire package, Ill need an engine mount for starters. Is that something that is still being fabricated, or will I have to find a used one? 3. Bumps engine cowling for Model III. 4. Header tank. 5. Firewall. If I cant find one, is it possible to obtain the dimensions of all those parts that go into the firewall so I can fabricate it? 6. Throttle assembly parts to convert verner throttle motion to the Rotax cable motion. My frame has the tangs but I dont have those parts. 7. Can you tell me the AN designation, or where to obtain the isolation mounts that hold the instrument panel. My assembly manual assumes you have the parts from the kit and does not list what they are. 8. Also, I see lots of parts out there for the Model IV. Can anyone tell me if the engine mount holes on the fuselage are the same for the III and IV. Is the cowling the same for III and IV? Thanks so much for any help and I look forward to the build. Ken Harrison Kitfox III Rotax 582 75% Done Lancaster, SC -- 12:23 PM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols(at)scrtc.com>
Subject: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one
like this
Date: Dec 26, 2006
You've probably already done so, but if not, I suggest you contact B & B Sport Aviation in Cambridge, Maryland. They're dealers for the Kiev prop, and should be able to help you. Clem Nichols ----- Original Message ----- From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:31 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like this > > Thanks for the response Guy, > > The spacer is very close to the same size as the 912-S Gearbox output > shaft, but the sapcer is aluminum, and the shaft is hardened steel, so im > sure that the spacer is the weak point in the system. > > What mkes it even worse, unlike a Kitfox, on my pusher Kolb the prop will > fly into my wing if the spacer breaks, most likely rendering it > uncontrollable as the aileron actuator tubes are on the trailing edge of > the wing. If I'm really having a bad day, the rotating prop might even > cut my tail boom in half which is a couple inches below :x > > The good news is that the Kiev prop is much lighter than the Warp Drive > props are. Kiev Props are well within Rotax Specs for rotational mass on > the output shaft. You seem to know a lot about this, I think the > material is milled billet, but I am not sure. It was expensive.... > Bottom line, given what you know about materials, would you fly this, or > test fly it ? If it lets go, its much more than an engine out, It would > surely create an opportunity to test my BRS ! > > JettPilot > > -------- > "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you > could have !!! > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83569#83569 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols(at)scrtc.com>
Subject: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one
like this
Date: Dec 26, 2006
Oops. B & B's telephone number is 410-221-8009. You can google their web site. Clem Nichols ----- Original Message ----- From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:31 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like this > > Thanks for the response Guy, > > The spacer is very close to the same size as the 912-S Gearbox output > shaft, but the sapcer is aluminum, and the shaft is hardened steel, so im > sure that the spacer is the weak point in the system. > > What mkes it even worse, unlike a Kitfox, on my pusher Kolb the prop will > fly into my wing if the spacer breaks, most likely rendering it > uncontrollable as the aileron actuator tubes are on the trailing edge of > the wing. If I'm really having a bad day, the rotating prop might even > cut my tail boom in half which is a couple inches below :x > > The good news is that the Kiev prop is much lighter than the Warp Drive > props are. Kiev Props are well within Rotax Specs for rotational mass on > the output shaft. You seem to know a lot about this, I think the > material is milled billet, but I am not sure. It was expensive.... > Bottom line, given what you know about materials, would you fly this, or > test fly it ? If it lets go, its much more than an engine out, It would > surely create an opportunity to test my BRS ! > > JettPilot > > -------- > "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you > could have !!! > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83569#83569 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like
this
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 26, 2006
Hi Guy, I need the information weather it is what I want to hear or not, im glad you are just telling it like it is. If you look at the attached picture, you can barely see the output shaft of the Rotax, it is slightly thicker than my spacer at its smallest point... Then you can see the spacer, which tapers down to a mere 2 inches [Evil or Very Mad] That taper is what worries me, if they were to have left the spacer diameter thicker, and cut indentations for the bolts, it would be a lot stronger... I just cant see any way that 2 inches of aluminum will be anywhere near as strong as the 2.25 or so inches of the Steel shaft from the engine. Mike -------- "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83611#83611 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/ultralightmikekolbdetail12_20_2006_115_112.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one like
this
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 26, 2006
Thanks, I tried to call them, but no luck, they must still be out for the holidays. I also found their website, but no information there. http://www.bbsportaviation.com/ Mike -------- "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83613#83613 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave G." <occom(at)ns.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one
like this
Date: Dec 26, 2006
----- Original Message ----- From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> I just cant see any way that 2 inches of aluminum will be anywhere near as strong as the 2.25 or so inches of the Steel shaft from the engine. > > Mike Mike the shaft from the output of the gearbox is a hollow steel tube roughly 1" in diameter. Even the output from an O-200 is not 2.25" of solid steel. As for the extension, I've seen a similar one on a Kolb using an 80 HP 912. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 26, 2006
From: Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com>
Subject: Re: Prop Spacer for 912-S - Has anyone ever seen one
like this At 11:05 AM 12/26/2006, you wrote: >That taper is what worries me, if they were to have left the spacer >diameter thicker, and cut indentations for the bolts, it would be a >lot stronger... I just cant see any way that 2 inches of aluminum >will be anywhere near as strong as the 2.25 or so inches of the >Steel shaft from the engine. Doing a little checking I found crank steel strength might run from 80 - 130 ksi. The strongest aluminum you're spacer would be made from is 7075, which in T6 temper is about 83 ksi. 7075 is also susceptible to stress corrosion cracking. (I found a fatigue strength of 27 ksi for 7075-T6.) Guy Buchanan K-IV/1200 w/ 582 C-box & Warp 3 blade ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 26, 2006
From: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Older Kitfox cruise speeds (and a new challenge for Michel's
simulator) Michel, Since we are off dreaming.... When aircraft are designed, they are usually initially layed out to be most efficient at a given cruise speed and weight. That means all parts are meant to be at their best when at that speed. The fuselage is aligned to the wind for least drag. The wing is then either given a zero incidence with an airfoil that will give 1 G lift at that speed, or placed at an incidence that gives 1 G lift, if the wing is designed to other special needs, like STOL flight. The tail is then set to give stability and counter the pitching moment of the wing. It must then be modified to account for landing and takeoff requirements. >From this point, the design is modified to achieve the other goals of the design. Say a wider cruise range, slower takeoff and landing speeds, more useful loads, etc. Flaps are added to help with the bottom end speeds. Incidence or wing span may be changed to help too, compromising top speeds. Everything is adjusted away from perfect at one speed, to acceptable for all design goals. And the tail must be modified to deal with it. Sounds like prop design problems too.... When we start with a KF I and then grow it to much greater weights and faster cruise speeds, the origional design no longer fits so well. The faster speed will necesitate the fuselage and wing being pitched nose down below the best drag profile. The greater weights mean higher stall speeds and longer T/O and landing distances. Simply changing the airfoil can give a new compromise in performance, but eventually nothing fits efficiently. Making major changes means new tooling and new parts that don't fit the earlier series. Bigger inventory. My guess is that the I-III Fox's were similar, but had to be modified to the IV's weight and speeds. Then the -5 and on needed major changes to deal with a larger aircraft, more weight and even higher speeds. But we builders don't leave it alone as designed. Different engines, the quest for more speed, etc make us fly outside of the angles that the planes parts were origionally set for. (Not to mention a little over weight?) So there we are with the nose tucked down because the high lift wing is flying faster than its origional AOA and incidence were designed for. The fuselage is more draggy to lower the wing's AOA at the designed incidence. The wing uses the wrong airfoil for that speed, so it is more draggy too. The tail has to trim to a draggier profile to accomidate the fuselage angle, weight changes, higher speeds, etc. Or we could reflex the flapperons up and take some lift off the wing.... That changes the pitching moment though (tail), but may align the fuselage and wing to a less draggy profile. Quick fix? Or change the wing and tail incidence? Now that needs complete testing for stall and spin characteristics too. And what did we do to the CG envelope? I think we are beyond X-Plane for giving the answers to these questions as you said Michel. And changing wing incidence on our own means some good testing needs to be done. What we can do is move the battery to give a little better CG taking the load off or adding it on to the tail to avoid trim drag there, or reflex the flapperons to increase the cruise without modifying parts. Since the lower flapperon deflections can lead to trouble anyway, maybe setting full up handle deflection to the most allowable flapperon down angle, then testing the plane for best reflex angle, handle down, might be a useful way to find some more speed for the I-III series? Just some thoughts... Kurt S. S-5 --- Michel Verheughe wrote: > Hello Paul, > > On Dec 26, 2006, at 8:00 PM, Paul Seehafer wrote: > > Thats's because Dean Wilson had already designed > the wing incidence > > into the Avid Flyer, which is what was used on the > first Fox. > > It looks like once again, I am the victim of my own > creative authoring. > Forget about the parallel universe and even forget > about the Kitfox. > Rex wrote me privately the following: Usually our > ultralight aircraft > have a wing AoA of 4 degrees, and a horizontal > stabiliser AoA of 2 > degrees. The difference of which is 4 - 2 = 2 > degrees. My question then > is: Would a wing AoA of 5 and a stab AoA of 3 (5 - 3 > = 2) make a > difference in the aircraft performance? __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Flight Sim X
From: "Joel" <foxfloatflyer(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 26, 2006
Santa was kind to me and I found a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator X in my stocking. Does anyone have the Kitfox modeled for this sim? Flying the de Havilland Beaver from Kenmore to Lake Cushman was a hoot! -------- Joel Mapes Kitfox 5 912 ULS Aerocomp amphibs Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83659#83659 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2006
Subject: Difference between the model II and model III.
From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor(at)online.no>
Hi Folks, I've lately been off list, but I've been reading the list frequently (without being a member) from the outside. Well, some time ago there was a topics about the difference between a model II and a model III. Ok., back in 91 a Kitfox owner from Bern (capital of Switzerland), made an upgrade calculation of a model II so it's max take off weight increased a 100 Lbs. I.E. New MTOW changed to 1050 Lbs. This was approved by the Swiss CAA I'll think. The name of this builder was; R.Meier. The file attached (a pdf) is only 89Kb, and contain the project. It is the upgrade of an Avid Flyer/ A.F. Hauler that's the base for the Kitfox upgrade, I'll think. Got this info from "the other Kitfox list" (Kitfox-Builders@RSA-Suisse.org), that existed (1999-2001) I'll think. Kurt is webmaster for this site (who hosted the Kitfox-Builders): http://www.experimental.ch/EAS/whoiswho/webmaster.htm Kurts E-mail is here: Kurt.Schumacher(at)schumi.ch Kurt used to be on this list, some time ago. For those interested I'll think he has more adequate info about this topics. Torgeir. Here's the dok., hopfully I'll do not attatch a picture this time :) : -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "john perry" <eskflyer(at)lvcisp.com>
Subject: Re: Difference between the model II and model III.
Date: Dec 26, 2006
Torgier I would like to extend my humble gratitude for your work on this . I have a model 2 and all the info is great . Thanks Fly safe fly low fly slow fly fun fly kitfox or that other plane BRO [akflyer] avid lol John Perry Kitfox 2 N718PD ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "kirk hull" <kirkhull(at)kc.rr.com>
Subject: Flight Sim X
Date: Dec 26, 2006
Santa must have had a few of those in stock as I received one to. I have yet to play yet as I don't have a DVD drive installed yet. I hope to have it in by the weekend. From what it have heard, there is no plans for a kitfox that I could find on the web. But who knows this time next year somebody might get around to it. Are the graphics as good as they say? -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Joel Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 6:32 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Flight Sim X Santa was kind to me and I found a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator X in my stocking. Does anyone have the Kitfox modeled for this sim? Flying the de Havilland Beaver from Kenmore to Lake Cushman was a hoot! -------- Joel Mapes Kitfox 5 912 ULS Aerocomp amphibs Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83659#83659 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Difference between the model II and model III.
Date: Dec 27, 2006
I know where I'll be first light tomorrow..... Out in the garage with the callipers :-) Thanks Torgeir I think I can put this info to use. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > Torgeir Mortensen > Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 11:19 PM > To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Kitfox-List: Difference between the model II and model III. > > > Hi Folks, > > I've lately been off list, but I've been reading the list frequently > (without being a member) from the outside. > > Well, some time ago there was a topics about the difference > between a > model II and a model III. Ok., back in 91 a Kitfox owner from Bern > (capital of Switzerland), made an upgrade calculation of a > model II so > it's max take off weight increased a 100 Lbs. I.E. New MTOW > changed to > 1050 Lbs. This was approved by the Swiss CAA I'll think. > > The name of this builder was; R.Meier. > > The file attached (a pdf) is only 89Kb, and contain the > project. It is the > upgrade of an Avid Flyer/ A.F. Hauler that's the base for the Kitfox > upgrade, I'll think. > > Got this info from "the other Kitfox list" > (Kitfox-Builders@RSA-Suisse.org), that existed (1999-2001) I'll think. > > Kurt is webmaster for this site (who hosted the Kitfox-Builders): > > http://www.experimental.ch/EAS/whoiswho/webmaster.htm > > Kurt's E-mail is here: Kurt.Schumacher(at)schumi.ch > > Kurt used to be on this list, some time ago. > > For those interested I'll think he has more adequate info about this > topics. > > > Torgeir. > > Here's the dok., hopfully I'll do not attatch a picture this time :) : > > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Kitfox III - New Builder - Need Help
From: "n61kf" <bkls1(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Dec 27, 2006
Ken, I may have everything you need. I have a damaged Model III, which I bought for parts to complete a Model IV, but have found I just dont have the time. I have the complete FWF, with a 582 with 3 hours since complete rebuild by LEAF, plus lots of other stuff. I plan to sell both, and will sell seperate. I also have the Model III builders manual. I am located in southern Ohio. Please e-mail or call for more info. Thanks Keith Schneider bkls1(at)earthlink.net 513-897-4311 -------- Keith Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83719#83719 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2006
From: Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com>
Subject: Rudder Control Cable
I have decided to change up my rudder control cables on my IV. It currently has a 3/32" cable with the stock connecting ends...I'm switching over to turnbuckels. My question turns out to be which cable style is best to use? As I was looking at Spruce, they display differences in strandings... 7x7, 7x19 and a 1x19. Does anyone know what Kitfox uses? Are there advantages / disadvantages to moving to 1/8". Not sure here. Thanks, Dan ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Flight Sim X
Date: Dec 27, 2006
On my computer I have to switch to a higher resolution. My normal resolution is 800X600. When I first started the FS-X all the video options were set at minimal so I went into options and cranked everything up. Every twenty minutes or so I will get a second or two video freeze so I would suggest getting the biggest honkin' video board you can shoe horn into your 'puter. This is a big program so lots of RAM and one of those new dual core processors won't go astray. To complete the install of your copy and use all the features you will have to go online and register it. After the program is registered you won't have to insert the disk into the drive to operate the program. The planes that are offered are getting wider and the process of choosing a plane has changed to a thumbnail system that you can filter for specific makes etc. The included trike is quite a bit of fun. On the other hand I still like flying my kitfox III, FS-9, which I modified and repainted to closely mimic my own plane. Too bad I haven't figured out how to put it in floats... Yet! Funny thing I have only flown my plane on floats and I've only flown the Simplane on wheels. I still have a bit of work to do on it to get the radio to change frequencies. Now for the bad news.... All those nice planes you have collected for your FS 2004 won't work in X. I guess it's just a matter of time before someone comes up with a file converter. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull > Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 12:30 AM > To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Flight Sim X > > > > Santa must have had a few of those in stock as I received one > to. I have > yet to play yet as I don't have a DVD drive installed yet. I > hope to have > it in by the weekend. From what it have heard, there is no > plans for a > kitfox that I could find on the web. But who knows this time > next year > somebody might get around to it. Are the graphics as good as > they say? > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Joel > Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 6:32 PM > To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Kitfox-List: Flight Sim X > > > Santa was kind to me and I found a copy of Microsoft Flight > Simulator X in > my stocking. Does anyone have the Kitfox modeled for this sim? > Flying the de Havilland Beaver from Kenmore to Lake Cushman > was a hoot! > > -------- > Joel Mapes Kitfox 5 912 ULS Aerocomp amphibs > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83659#83659 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rudder Control Cable
From: "Richard Rabbers" <rira1950(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 27, 2006
> dan(at)azshowersolutions posted at Wed Dec 27, 2006 7:05 pm "My question turns out to be which cable style is best to use? As I was looking at Spruce, they display differences in strandings... 7x7, 7x19 and a 1x19. Does anyone know what Kitfox uses?" Dan, An educated guess.... and info. 7 x 19 for KF and general aircraft use (as control cables) The numbers equate to strands and winds. 1x19 (1 cable made up of 19 single stranded winds) is the least flexible - generally used for standing rigging on a sailboat.... or other non-flex situations 7x7 (1 cable made up of 7 strand in each of 7 winds) can be used for non-flex situations (use only with large radius turning sheaves where turning is required) 7x19 (1 cable made up of 7 strand in each of 19 winds) can be used for flex situations such and control cables including (small sheaves and 180 degree are common) -------- Richard in SW Michigan Model 1 / 618 - full-lotus floats (restoration) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83754#83754 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>
Subject: Re: Rudder Control Cable
Date: Dec 27, 2006
I did the switch to stainless steel cables and turnbuckles, and I used the 7x19 with swaged MS20667 fork-ends at the rudder horns, and turnbuckles at the rudder ends. I'm not sure of advantages of going to 1/8", but weight would be a disadvantage, along with stiffness, but this doesn't seem like it would be a problem, given the pretty straight shot from front to back in the plane. Mine have worked well for over 200 hours so far. The plane came with the galvanized 7x19 cables. Lynn On Dec 27, 2006, at 9:05 AM, Dan Billingsley wrote: > I have decided to change up my rudder control cables on my IV. It > currently has a 3/32" cable with the stock connecting ends...I'm > switching over to turnbuckels. My question turns out to be which > cable style is best to use? As I was looking at Spruce, they > display differences in strandings... 7x7, 7x19 and a 1x19. Does > anyone know what Kitfox uses? Are there advantages / disadvantages > to moving to 1/8". Not sure here. > Thanks, Dan > www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List _- > =========================================================== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: First (Four) Flights!!
Date: Dec 27, 2006
Hello All Kitfox Lovers, I'm proud to report that another Series 5 is now flying (as of Saturday 23 Dec)! My apologies for not reporting sooner, but I've been pretty obsessed with flying it every day since. The tach is now reading 6.9 hrs!! The wind & rain are keeping me on the ground today so I have a chance to catch up on communications. In a nutshell everything went well (even though I was extremely nervous & prepared to die) with only a couple of bleeps. First sustained full power burning of the exhaust system (presumably) caused a 'smoke' trail on take off which caused a little concern in the tower. Also a slight power loss at about 900' AGL was cause for great concern, but some manipulation of the throttle & mixture controls cleared it up. After my heart rate came down & I had ~5,000' of altitude, I mostly ran the engine @ 75+% power & paid attention to the gauges. I did a very light stall before descending to a not pretty but still in one piece landing. What a feeling! Thanks for the help & encouragement of everyone on this list. As I'm still in the process of seating the rings on my rebuilt Lycoming I've mostly been running the engine hard, closely monitoring the gauges & purely loving life & flying too. So I don't have any hard numbers to report other than to say that my plane seems to be behaving about as I'd hoped and about as reported by others with the same engine. I'll plan to post some performance numbers once I've done a lot more flight testing. Again, thanks a million for the help, enouragement & organization of this list - It is a great service! Extra thanks to John McBean & Bruce Lina. Grant Krueger San Luis Obispo, CA _________________________________________________________________ >From photos to predictions, The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes has it all. http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
Subject: Re: First (Four) Flights!!
Date: Dec 27, 2006
Whaaaaahoooooo! Another one takes to the air. Congrats Grant. Now the real fun begins. Deke NE MI 42f, sunny, calm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 11:27 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: First (Four) Flights!! > > Hello All Kitfox Lovers, > > I'm proud to report that another Series 5 is now flying (as of Saturday 23 > Dec)! > > My apologies for not reporting sooner, but I've been pretty obsessed with > flying it every day since. The tach is now reading 6.9 hrs!! The wind & > rain are keeping me on the ground today so I have a chance to catch up on > communications. > > In a nutshell everything went well (even though I was extremely nervous & > prepared to die) with only a couple of bleeps. First sustained full power > burning of the exhaust system (presumably) caused a 'smoke' trail on take > off which caused a little concern in the tower. Also a slight power loss at > about 900' AGL was cause for great concern, but some manipulation of the > throttle & mixture controls cleared it up. After my heart rate came down & > I had ~5,000' of altitude, I mostly ran the engine @ 75+% power & paid > attention to the gauges. I did a very light stall before descending to a > not pretty but still in one piece landing. What a feeling! Thanks for the > help & encouragement of everyone on this list. > > As I'm still in the process of seating the rings on my rebuilt Lycoming I've > mostly been running the engine hard, closely monitoring the gauges & purely > loving life & flying too. So I don't have any hard numbers to report other > than to say that my plane seems to be behaving about as I'd hoped and about > as reported by others with the same engine. I'll plan to post some > performance numbers once I've done a lot more flight testing. > > Again, thanks a million for the help, enouragement & organization of this > list - It is a great service! Extra thanks to John McBean & Bruce Lina. > > Grant Krueger > San Luis Obispo, CA > > _________________________________________________________________ > >From photos to predictions, The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes has > it all. http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: First (Four) Flights!!
Date: Dec 27, 2006
That blip in the engine could have been, amongst other things, carb icing... The AMO I used to work for always recommended using pure mineral oil for the first 50 Hr. to seat the valves and rings. When you change it you will appreciate that it works..... It will be as black as tar! Congratulations. Sounds like you have a real keeper there! Noel a > slight power loss at > about 900' AGL was cause for great concern, but some > manipulation of the > throttle & mixture controls cleared it up. After my heart > rate came down > As I'm still in the process of seating the rings on my > rebuilt Lycoming I've > mostly been running the engine hard, closely monitoring the > gauges & purely ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
Subject: Re: First (Four) Flights!!
Date: Dec 27, 2006
Congrats Grant ! What a way to ring in the new year a few days early !!. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 11:27 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: First (Four) Flights!! > > Hello All Kitfox Lovers, > > I'm proud to report that another Series 5 is now flying (as of Saturday 23 > Dec)! > > My apologies for not reporting sooner, but I've been pretty obsessed with > flying it every day since. The tach is now reading 6.9 hrs!! The wind & > rain are keeping me on the ground today so I have a chance to catch up on > communications. > > In a nutshell everything went well (even though I was extremely nervous & > prepared to die) with only a couple of bleeps. First sustained full power > burning of the exhaust system (presumably) caused a 'smoke' trail on take > off which caused a little concern in the tower. Also a slight power loss > at about 900' AGL was cause for great concern, but some manipulation of > the throttle & mixture controls cleared it up. After my heart rate came > down & I had ~5,000' of altitude, I mostly ran the engine @ 75+% power & > paid attention to the gauges. I did a very light stall before descending > to a not pretty but still in one piece landing. What a feeling! Thanks > for the help & encouragement of everyone on this list. > > As I'm still in the process of seating the rings on my rebuilt Lycoming > I've mostly been running the engine hard, closely monitoring the gauges & > purely loving life & flying too. So I don't have any hard numbers to > report other than to say that my plane seems to be behaving about as I'd > hoped and about as reported by others with the same engine. I'll plan to > post some performance numbers once I've done a lot more flight testing. > > Again, thanks a million for the help, enouragement & organization of this > list - It is a great service! Extra thanks to John McBean & Bruce Lina. > > Grant Krueger > San Luis Obispo, CA > > _________________________________________________________________ >>From photos to predictions, The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes >>has > it all. http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/ > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2006
From: Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com>
Subject: Re: Rudder Control Cable
Lynn and Richard, Thank you for your replies! Dan Lynn Matteson wrote: I did the switch to stainless steel cables and turnbuckles, and I used the 7x19 with swaged MS20667 fork-ends at the rudder horns, and turnbuckles at the rudder ends. I'm not sure of advantages of going to 1/8", but weight would be a disadvantage, along with stiffness, but this doesn't seem like it would be a problem, given the pretty straight shot from front to back in the plane. Mine have worked well for over 200 hours so far. The plane came with the galvanized 7x19 cables. Lynn On Dec 27, 2006, at 9:05 AM, Dan Billingsley wrote: > I have decided to change up my rudder control cables on my IV. It > currently has a 3/32" cable with the stock connecting ends...I'm > switching over to turnbuckels. My question turns out to be which > cable style is best to use? As I was looking at Spruce, they > display differences in strandings... 7x7, 7x19 and a 1x19. Does > anyone know what Kitfox uses? Are there advantages / disadvantages > to moving to 1/8". Not sure here. > Thanks, Dan > www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List _- > =========================================================== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>
Subject: Re: Older Kitfox cruise speeds
Date: Dec 27, 2006
You've been flying a lot longer than I have, Michel, but my takeoff technique is different. I was instructed to hold neutral elevator, full power, then at about 30mph, forward stick only until tail raised, then hold neutral elevator until liftoff, or pull back slightly to induce liftoff. Then either forward for ground effects (shortfield) and quicker achievement of Vy, or back for Vx, but only when Vy speed has been achieved. Of course my cowl is the Skyfox cowl, and easier to see over (even for this 5' 6" pilot), so I don't have to...or WANT to...push that stick forward too far, let alone full forward. My soft field technique is to hold stick full back, firewall the throttle, and hold stick back until it lifts off by itself, then forward until Vy is achieved, then use stick to hold Vy. As my instructor says, "as soon as you leave the ground, your soft field is over." Lynn On Dec 27, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote: > > On Dec 27, 2006, at 3:23 PM, mscotter wrote: >> hence allowing the nose to be lower and us to see over >> it better. > > Aha! Now we are getting closer, Mark! I am sorry, I didn't read > entirely the article Paul provided, mostly what he underlined in > red. I have then missed the point in the high AoA. > >> and thus be developing lift and flying sooner. > > Good Lord! Then I have to revise my take off technique. I fly from > a long asphalt runway so STOL is not very actual. But, at > occasions, I need to take off from short grass runways. Now, I was > instructed to take off by pushing the stick full forward, if > anything, to see sooner over the cowling. Once I was with a > passenger, on a hot summer day, on a short grass field and I pulled > the stick back a bit too soon, the plane wasn't ready to take off. > We did a few hop and I didn't like it (nor my passenger, for the > matter! :-) > After that, I tried to improve the technique which is: Full > throttle and stick full forward. As soon as the plane is level, I > wait for Vso then pull the flaps and keep the plane a few inches > over the ground until speed is enough to go ballistic toward the > sky, after pushing in the flaps. > Is this wrong? Because if the high AoA is to help STOL, then I > should take off with the tailwheel still on the ground, right? I > thought it was important, on short fields, to be horizontal as soon > as possible, to have as little as possible induced drag and pick up > speed fast. > > Cheers, > Michel ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
Subject: More speeds: Older Kitfox cruise speeds
Date: Dec 27, 2006
Lynn, I find the shortest take off is Full power - brakes if you have or can tail up and zero flaps When "my ASI " hits just about 30mph then ==> FULL FLAPS ( mine go over 30 degrees) You will break ground in a hurry - start bleeding off flaps to 20 degree and climb bleeding out flaps as you climb and your vertical speed increases. depending on weight you can be airbourne in well under 100 feet on wheels and on float this can help break the suction on glassy water........ Dave IV 582 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt(at)jps.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 8:40 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Older Kitfox cruise speeds > > You've been flying a lot longer than I have, Michel, but my takeoff > technique is different. I was instructed to hold neutral elevator, full > power, then at about 30mph, forward stick only until tail raised, then > hold neutral elevator until liftoff, or pull back slightly to induce > liftoff. Then either forward for ground effects (shortfield) and quicker > achievement of Vy, or back for Vx, but only when Vy speed has been > achieved. Of course my cowl is the Skyfox cowl, and easier to see over > (even for this 5' 6" pilot), so I don't have to...or WANT to...push that > stick forward too far, let alone full forward. My soft field technique is > to hold stick full back, firewall the throttle, and hold stick back until > it lifts off by itself, then forward until Vy is achieved, then use stick > to hold Vy. As my instructor says, "as soon as you leave the ground, > your soft field is over." > > Lynn > > On Dec 27, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote: > >> >> On Dec 27, 2006, at 3:23 PM, mscotter wrote: >>> hence allowing the nose to be lower and us to see over >>> it better. >> >> Aha! Now we are getting closer, Mark! I am sorry, I didn't read entirely >> the article Paul provided, mostly what he underlined in red. I have then >> missed the point in the high AoA. >> >>> and thus be developing lift and flying sooner. >> >> Good Lord! Then I have to revise my take off technique. I fly from a >> long asphalt runway so STOL is not very actual. But, at occasions, I >> need to take off from short grass runways. Now, I was instructed to take >> off by pushing the stick full forward, if anything, to see sooner over >> the cowling. Once I was with a passenger, on a hot summer day, on a >> short grass field and I pulled the stick back a bit too soon, the plane >> wasn't ready to take off. We did a few hop and I didn't like it (nor my >> passenger, for the matter! :-) >> After that, I tried to improve the technique which is: Full throttle and >> stick full forward. As soon as the plane is level, I wait for Vso then >> pull the flaps and keep the plane a few inches over the ground until >> speed is enough to go ballistic toward the sky, after pushing in the >> flaps. >> Is this wrong? Because if the high AoA is to help STOL, then I should >> take off with the tailwheel still on the ground, right? I thought it was >> important, on short fields, to be horizontal as soon as possible, to >> have as little as possible induced drag and pick up speed fast. >> >> Cheers, >> Michel > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
Subject: Speed required to air start
Date: Dec 27, 2006
Has anyone ever shut off engine and Airstarted ? If so at what speed could you get engine restarted? My 582 with GSC I tried today and you have to dive to about 90 to 95 or so. I would be interested in what others have experienced with their engine / prop combination. If you have not done this , you should so you can get a feel for the differance in glide incase you have to make a forced approach. I will try next time I switch props and report back. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt(at)jps.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 8:40 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Older Kitfox cruise speeds > > You've been flying a lot longer than I have, Michel, but my takeoff > technique is different. I was instructed to hold neutral elevator, full > power, then at about 30mph, forward stick only until tail raised, then > hold neutral elevator until liftoff, or pull back slightly to induce > liftoff. Then either forward for ground effects (shortfield) and quicker > achievement of Vy, or back for Vx, but only when Vy speed has been > achieved. Of course my cowl is the Skyfox cowl, and easier to see over > (even for this 5' 6" pilot), so I don't have to...or WANT to...push that > stick forward too far, let alone full forward. My soft field technique is > to hold stick full back, firewall the throttle, and hold stick back until > it lifts off by itself, then forward until Vy is achieved, then use stick > to hold Vy. As my instructor says, "as soon as you leave the ground, > your soft field is over." > > Lynn > > On Dec 27, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote: > >> >> On Dec 27, 2006, at 3:23 PM, mscotter wrote: >>> hence allowing the nose to be lower and us to see over >>> it better. >> >> Aha! Now we are getting closer, Mark! I am sorry, I didn't read entirely >> the article Paul provided, mostly what he underlined in red. I have then >> missed the point in the high AoA. >> >>> and thus be developing lift and flying sooner. >> >> Good Lord! Then I have to revise my take off technique. I fly from a >> long asphalt runway so STOL is not very actual. But, at occasions, I >> need to take off from short grass runways. Now, I was instructed to take >> off by pushing the stick full forward, if anything, to see sooner over >> the cowling. Once I was with a passenger, on a hot summer day, on a >> short grass field and I pulled the stick back a bit too soon, the plane >> wasn't ready to take off. We did a few hop and I didn't like it (nor my >> passenger, for the matter! :-) >> After that, I tried to improve the technique which is: Full throttle and >> stick full forward. As soon as the plane is level, I wait for Vso then >> pull the flaps and keep the plane a few inches over the ground until >> speed is enough to go ballistic toward the sky, after pushing in the >> flaps. >> Is this wrong? Because if the high AoA is to help STOL, then I should >> take off with the tailwheel still on the ground, right? I thought it was >> important, on short fields, to be horizontal as soon as possible, to >> have as little as possible induced drag and pick up speed fast. >> >> Cheers, >> Michel > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Aerobatics(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 27, 2006
Subject: less than 100 foot take off ... cool
Less than 100 feet? calm day? Wow awesome I thought I could TO short :-) I once had a bit of snow on my runway so I could plainly see and accurately measure I also tried different things. Best I got was a bit under 200 feet on a cold day, no wind, solo, 1/2 fuel. Most were around 225 feet. I even have some on vid Full Brake full power full up elevator, release brake, after about a long second, full down to level. Adjust elevator to maintain level, then as I pass 35 mph Up to rotate. My strip is 750 feet total. So I practice this all the time. I cant imagine a KF taking off in less than 100 feet, that has to be a rush! Dave Patrick KF 2 582 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "kirk hull" <kirkhull(at)kc.rr.com>
Subject: less than 100 foot take off ... cool
Date: Dec 27, 2006
What is the hp / engine and empty weight _____ From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Aerobatics(at)aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 8:47 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: less than 100 foot take off ... cool Less than 100 feet? calm day? Wow awesome I thought I could TO short :-) I once had a bit of snow on my runway so I could plainly see and accurately measure I also tried different things. Best I got was a bit under 200 feet on a cold day, no wind, solo, 1/2 fuel. Most were around 225 feet. I even have some on vid Full Brake full power full up elevator, release brake, after about a long second, full down to level. Adjust elevator to maintain level, then as I pass 35 mph Up to rotate. My strip is 750 feet total. So I practice this all the time. I cant imagine a KF taking off in less than 100 feet, that has to be a rush! Dave Patrick KF 2 582 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>
Subject: Re: More speeds: Older Kitfox cruise speeds
Date: Dec 28, 2006
I haven't tried full flaps for TO, but have done 1/2 flaps, on at full brakes, full power and let 'er go...this for the short-field TO. My flaps are maxed at about 22-23 degrees....the SUGGESTED setting for the IV, and I've got a cruise prop and 4-stroke power, so I'm a "no-contender" for the TO trophy. : ) My hangar mate also goes to full flaps while rolling his 1956 172 Cessna just before rotation...I suppose this allows for faster acceleration than going to full flaps during stand-still, then accelerating with the "full-flap drag"? Lynn On Dec 27, 2006, at 8:48 PM, dave wrote: > > Lynn, > I find the shortest take off is > Full power - brakes if you have or can > tail up and zero flaps > When "my ASI " hits just about 30mph then ==> FULL FLAPS ( mine go > over 30 degrees) > You will break ground in a hurry - > start bleeding off flaps to 20 degree and climb bleeding out flaps > as you climb and your vertical speed increases. > depending on weight you can be airbourne in well under 100 feet on > wheels > and on float this can help break the suction on glassy water........ > > Dave > IV 582 > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt(at)jps.net> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 8:40 PM > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Older Kitfox cruise speeds > > >> >> You've been flying a lot longer than I have, Michel, but my >> takeoff technique is different. I was instructed to hold neutral >> elevator, full power, then at about 30mph, forward stick only >> until tail raised, then hold neutral elevator until liftoff, or >> pull back slightly to induce liftoff. Then either forward for >> ground effects (shortfield) and quicker achievement of Vy, or >> back for Vx, but only when Vy speed has been achieved. Of course >> my cowl is the Skyfox cowl, and easier to see over (even for this >> 5' 6" pilot), so I don't have to...or WANT to...push that stick >> forward too far, let alone full forward. My soft field technique >> is to hold stick full back, firewall the throttle, and hold stick >> back until it lifts off by itself, then forward until Vy is >> achieved, then use stick to hold Vy. As my instructor says, "as >> soon as you leave the ground, your soft field is over." >> >> Lynn >> >> On Dec 27, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Dec 27, 2006, at 3:23 PM, mscotter wrote: >>>> hence allowing the nose to be lower and us to see over >>>> it better. >>> >>> Aha! Now we are getting closer, Mark! I am sorry, I didn't read >>> entirely the article Paul provided, mostly what he underlined in >>> red. I have then missed the point in the high AoA. >>> >>>> and thus be developing lift and flying sooner. >>> >>> Good Lord! Then I have to revise my take off technique. I fly >>> from a long asphalt runway so STOL is not very actual. But, at >>> occasions, I need to take off from short grass runways. Now, I >>> was instructed to take off by pushing the stick full forward, >>> if anything, to see sooner over the cowling. Once I was with a >>> passenger, on a hot summer day, on a short grass field and I >>> pulled the stick back a bit too soon, the plane wasn't ready to >>> take off. We did a few hop and I didn't like it (nor my >>> passenger, for the matter! :-) >>> After that, I tried to improve the technique which is: Full >>> throttle and stick full forward. As soon as the plane is level, >>> I wait for Vso then pull the flaps and keep the plane a few >>> inches over the ground until speed is enough to go ballistic >>> toward the sky, after pushing in the flaps. >>> Is this wrong? Because if the high AoA is to help STOL, then I >>> should take off with the tailwheel still on the ground, right? I >>> thought it was important, on short fields, to be horizontal as >>> soon as possible, to have as little as possible induced drag and >>> pick up speed fast. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Michel >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Aerobatics(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 28, 2006
Subject: Re: less than 100 foot take off ... cool
In a message dated 12/27/2006 9:42:39 P.M. Central Standard Time, kirkhull(at)kc.rr.com writes: What is the hp / engine and empty weight Empty wt is 480 lbs its a KF 2 the 582 Blue head is 66 hp on an E box IVO 3 blade UL prop ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Skis for Kitfox's
From: "crazyivan" <dmivezic(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 28, 2006
I'm glad to see that somebody else thought that $3600 for experimental skis is nuts. And they aren't even painted. Seems to me that either their manufacturing process is too expensive or they are trying to get a premium profit just because it's aviation. I'd be willing to pay $1500 max for a new set of LIGHTER, wheel penetrating skis that have had some market exposure and positive feedback. (I prefer John's suggestion of 500 bucks) I don't know if I should wish these aviation entrepreneurs good luck or be mad because they are trying to make the aviation lifestyle that much more expensive for us regular Joes. -------- Dave Speedster 912 UL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83933#83933 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>
Subject: Re: Skis for Kitfox's
Date: Dec 28, 2006
Funny you should mention lighter, wheel-penetrating skis...I'm in the process of ordering/building a set right now, based on the best ideas that I've heard/seen/read about. I'm certainly not in any position to market anything....just building a set for my own pleasure, if the snow ever comes this way. Maybe I should be glad there's no snow yet...might be tempted to clamp on some barrel staves, and give it a go. : ) There are others out there that might be better suited to build/ market a set, and maybe your comments will stir some activity....anyone...John, Dave, Michel? Lynn On Dec 28, 2006, at 8:43 AM, crazyivan wrote: > > I'm glad to see that somebody else thought that $3600 for > experimental skis is nuts. And they aren't even painted. Seems to > me that either their manufacturing process is too expensive or they > are trying to get a premium profit just because it's aviation. > > I'd be willing to pay $1500 max for a new set of LIGHTER, wheel > penetrating skis that have had some market exposure and positive > feedback. (I prefer John's suggestion of 500 bucks) > > I don't know if I should wish these aviation entrepreneurs good > luck or be mad because they are trying to make the aviation > lifestyle that much more expensive for us regular Joes. > > -------- > Dave > Speedster 912 UL > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83933#83933 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "floran higgins" <cliffh(at)outdrs.net>
Subject: Re: less than 100 foot take off ... cool
Date: Dec 28, 2006
This is standard procedure for a short field takeoff. I have used this procedure for years in a Cessena 180 and now in my Speedster. I havren't measured the distance with a tape measure but I am sure that less than 100 ft is entirely possible. Floran H. ----- Original Message ----- From: Aerobatics(at)aol.com To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 7:47 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: less than 100 foot take off ... cool Less than 100 feet? calm day? Wow awesome I thought I could TO short :-) I once had a bit of snow on my runway so I could plainly see and accurately measure I also tried different things. Best I got was a bit under 200 feet on a cold day, no wind, solo, 1/2 fuel. Most were around 225 feet. I even have some on vid Full Brake full power full up elevator, release brake, after about a long second, full down to level. Adjust elevator to maintain level, then as I pass 35 mph Up to rotate. My strip is 750 feet total. So I practice this all the time. I cant imagine a KF taking off in less than 100 feet, that has to be a rush! Dave Patrick KF 2 582 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
Subject: Re: Skis for Kitfox's
Date: Dec 28, 2006
yes 3600 out of my pocket book for a Kitfox. There are some manufactures that make them for about 1500 for challengers but a Kitfox is a bit heavier and those are straight skis. I think 1000 $ would be a very fair price for a pair of 4130 wheel skis. I have straight skis now and when I get my 21 iuch tires from Jim, perhaps i should make a set that would accommadate others? I have 16 inch golf cart style tires now so I do not think that that would e a common size tire/ski combo? Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "crazyivan" <dmivezic(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:43 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > I'm glad to see that somebody else thought that $3600 for experimental > skis is nuts. And they aren't even painted. Seems to me that either > their manufacturing process is too expensive or they are trying to get a > premium profit just because it's aviation. > > I'd be willing to pay $1500 max for a new set of LIGHTER, wheel > penetrating skis that have had some market exposure and positive feedback. > (I prefer John's suggestion of 500 bucks) > > I don't know if I should wish these aviation entrepreneurs good luck or be > mad because they are trying to make the aviation lifestyle that much more > expensive for us regular Joes. > > -------- > Dave > Speedster 912 UL > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83933#83933 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
Subject: Re: less than 100 foot take off ... cool
Date: Dec 28, 2006
I was just out this am , My IV weight is about 540 plus my fat ass of 215 and 6 gals fuel . temp 34F wind 3 knots at 210 and i took off on heading 170 and was off in about 120 feet or less across a 100 foot wide runway-- and it all grass ,unfrozen ground. And thats was zero flap till 30 mph then full 30 deg + flap and rotate at once --pop up she goes. Would be fun to try on a 20 knot wind day :) I will mark it out one day and/or park some plane wing tip to wingtip so it gives a good referance. My 582 only getting 5900 static and I should re adjust to 6200 or 6400 rpm to get a bi better but it works pretty well all around now and with colder temps coming it will elevate my egts then . Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: Aerobatics(at)aol.com To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 1:10 AM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: less than 100 foot take off ... cool In a message dated 12/27/2006 9:42:39 P.M. Central Standard Time, kirkhull(at)kc.rr.com writes: What is the hp / engine and empty weight Empty wt is 480 lbs its a KF 2 the 582 Blue head is 66 hp on an E box IVO 3 blade UL prop ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Re: Skis for Kitfox's
Date: Dec 28, 2006
I have the straight skis but would prefer to have the penetration skis. Loading the plane on a trailer is easier with the wheels, not to mention putting it back in the garage. May be the way to go would be for someone to offer a ski kit. That would remove all liability and could lower the prices. The kit should include Axels drilled etc to accept the ski mount, the ski frames and a ski skin along with cables, bungees and the cable fittings. Done that way I could see the cost drop close to the $500 mark. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of crazyivan > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:14 AM > To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > > > I'm glad to see that somebody else thought that $3600 for > experimental skis is nuts. And they aren't even painted. > Seems to me that either their manufacturing process is too > expensive or they are trying to get a premium profit just > because it's aviation. > > I'd be willing to pay $1500 max for a new set of LIGHTER, > wheel penetrating skis that have had some market exposure and > positive feedback. (I prefer John's suggestion of 500 bucks) > > I don't know if I should wish these aviation entrepreneurs > good luck or be mad because they are trying to make the > aviation lifestyle that much more expensive for us regular Joes. > > -------- > Dave > Speedster 912 UL > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83933#83933 > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: More speeds: Older Kitfox cruise speeds
From: "kitfoxmike" <kitfoxmike(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 28, 2006
I have experimented with full flap take offs, and what I found was an amazing takeoff. I did mine where I was full flaps and was rolling a little, hit the throttle and away I went. It was amazing how the tail sprang up off the runway, and the lift wow. The only thing was I left the full flaps on at altitude and quickly found a huge drag and of course the turning was junk. I sense have found that you remove the flaps as soon as you can to gain airspeed and control. Another thing to watch out for is the tail comes way up and a prop strike is possible. I have a 68 inch powerfin 3 blade so I have extra room to play with, but if you have a 72 inch, I feel you could be in trouble. I limit myself to half flaps, but most all take offs are no flaps and I can still get off within about 200ft. plenty for me. kitfox4 speedster 1200, 912ul kitfoxmike Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83953#83953 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
Subject: Re: Skis for Kitfox's
Date: Dec 28, 2006
Noel, NO chance of 500 $ unless you talking EACH !! 4130 is 3 to 5 $ a foot alone. you will need 20 to 25 feet per ski UHMW is about 3 to 4 $ a square foot. 10 sq feet needed. Am I missing somthing ? Also ........ A tip to move in shot on skis ..... use a 2 x 6 that fits under the axles and between the calipers and put on a floor jack . lift up a few inches and pull the plane on floor jack . If you have a tail ski it will drag ok or put a dolly under the tail ski. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:11 AM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > I have the straight skis but would prefer to have the penetration skis. > Loading the plane on a trailer is easier with the wheels, not to mention > putting it back in the garage. > > May be the way to go would be for someone to offer a ski kit. That would > remove all liability and could lower the prices. The kit should include > Axels drilled etc to accept the ski mount, the ski frames and a ski skin > along with cables, bungees and the cable fittings. Done that way I could > see the cost drop close to the $500 mark. > > Noel > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of crazyivan >> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:14 AM >> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's >> >> >> >> I'm glad to see that somebody else thought that $3600 for >> experimental skis is nuts. And they aren't even painted. >> Seems to me that either their manufacturing process is too >> expensive or they are trying to get a premium profit just >> because it's aviation. >> >> I'd be willing to pay $1500 max for a new set of LIGHTER, >> wheel penetrating skis that have had some market exposure and >> positive feedback. (I prefer John's suggestion of 500 bucks) >> >> I don't know if I should wish these aviation entrepreneurs >> good luck or be mad because they are trying to make the >> aviation lifestyle that much more expensive for us regular Joes. >> >> -------- >> Dave >> Speedster 912 UL >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83933#83933 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: EMAproducts(at)AOL.COM
Date: Dec 28, 2006
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List Digest: 23 Msgs - 12/27/06
12/2006 Gentlemen, Currently I have less than 30% of our customers current e-mail addresses. I am attempting to update our mailing lists to see if they have any questions re their RiteAngle IIIb Angle of Attack systems. Occasionally I get a call from someone who purchased a system several years ago and still do not have system installed or set-up due to various reasons. Should you have any questions, comments, photos of system installed in your plane, endorsements or whatever re: the RiteAngle IIIb system please send it to this address _riteangle3(at)aol.com_ (mailto:riteangle3(at)aol.com) Thankfully, since the IIIb system has gone into production, we have had no changes in the electronics, however we now have a professional written setup manual. Sincerely Elbie EM Aviation, LLC ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Skis for Kitfox's
From: "crazyivan" <dmivezic(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 28, 2006
Sportflight.com photo and file share page has a lot of ideas for home made skis. Check this one out: http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1070714137 Not too sure how effective these are but it's a brilliant (simple) idea to work from. -------- Dave Speedster 912 UL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84015#84015 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
Subject: Re: Skis for Kitfox's
Date: Dec 28, 2006
Those were my skis Dave that I made for my M2. They were fine (and very effective) for that airplane at just over 500 lbs and would be OK for up through the IV if kept light, but wouldn't be enough surface area for the heavier models like the 5+. Interesting enough, the total weight of each ski was less than the wheel and tire. Axle bushings were just hardware store bronze units at a couple bucks each. The ABS plastic skis provided a very slippery surface and takeoff was about the same as the wheels. I even used them on bare concrete a few times with very little scuffing. Unfortunately, when I sold the II, the skis went with it. Fairly easy to make though. If anyone has any questions about them just let me know. Deke (Darrel Morisse) ----- Original Message ----- From: "crazyivan" <dmivezic(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 2:31 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > Sportflight.com photo and file share page has a lot of ideas for home made skis. Check this one out: http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1070714137 > Not too sure how effective these are but it's a brilliant (simple) idea to work from. > > -------- > Dave > Speedster 912 UL > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84015#84015 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps(at)tznet.com>
Subject: Re: less than 100 foot take off ... cool
Date: Dec 28, 2006
Dave, Back in the late 80's and early 90's it seemed everyone with an Avid Flyer or a Kitfox was trying to outdo the other guy in the short takeoff category (other airplanes generally can't even compete with our airplanes). So to defend the STOL KING credentials of my Avid Flyer, I practiced, practiced, and practiced some more my short takeoff technique. I found what worked best is to hold brakes with full power until you feel the airplane starting to overcome the brakes (we had poor mechanical brakes way back when, so that was almost immediately), then within a few feet of the starting roll to release slight stick back pressure, just enough to let the tailwheel rise ever so slightly (a couple inches off the surface). Then just before you thought it might fly (in my airplane at the time this was just as the airspeed indicator was coming up on 20 mph), jerk the flaps on full while burying the stick in your lap. This would normally provide a "main gear first" liftoff, followed by the tailwheel. Of course as soon as you were off you had to reduce the back pressure as well as about 1/2 the flaps. But you were off very short, and in those early planes climbing out at about a 45 degree angle! The thought process behind using this technique is; 1 - The drag caused by rolling down the runway with the wing at a high angle of attack is minimal at best when you consider the very slow speeds a light Avid or Kitfox can lift off at (20-25 mph), and the short distance you rolled (50-75 feet) . 2 - With the high wing angle of attack right from the start of the roll the very high lift airfoil (especially of the early airplanes) goes to work lightening the aircraft, allowing it to fly sooner. If nothing else, it forces the lift off at the least amount of speed needed, rather than relying on the pilots judgement of the rotation time or speed. 3 - By releasing just enough back pressure to let the tailwheel skim a few inches off the ground, you've minimized wheel drag for one of the wheels, but yet maintained that high angle of attack of the wing for the most lift. 4 - When you really knew your airplane and were able to pull back on the stick and the flap handle at just the right moment, you caused a "ballooning effect" much like when you first apply flaps on a decent. That balloon effect on takeoff maximizes use of ground effect. Why not raise the tail and rotate? Well, on the early airplanes the takeoff was so quick that seemed like nothing more than a waste of time to me. Plus I was busy enough the way it was. So does this technique still apply? I think so. I'm sure someone will tell me why it won't according to some other source, but I still use it. A similar technique gets my 775 lb 912ul amphib Model 4 off the water in 8 seconds (although in that case I also raise one fly by applying full left aileron and a touch of left rudder while jerking on the stick and the flaps...). That is a very short takeoff for an amphib, especially one with only 80 horsepower that has everything but the kitchen sink on it. Unfortunately I can't tell you how it compares on wheels as I haven't yet flown my fox on wheels. But I'm sure it will do a 4-5 second takeoff on land (even without doing the math, I'm sure thats not a lot of forward distance). Here's a little story describing just how well my practiced technique worked; I once won $100 in a bet against a guy that owned a souped up 360 hp IO-550 powered 185 Cessna by having a group of other pilots measure off my Avid Flyers takeoff. He said there was no way I could take off in a hundred feet (the claim I made to the group that he overheard) and went on to make jokes about my snowmobilie motor powered toy airplane. Of course I had to defend the Avid, so I bet him $100 I could do it in less than a hundred feet, and certainly shorter than he could with his hot rod Cessna. Oh yeah, we had a density altitude at the time of almost 4,000 feet as it was 90+ degrees out (with essentially no wind). So the group of other pilots hanging around the airport measure for me, as I took off sideways on a taxiway (the airport manager knew me and my plane well, so went along with my little escapade). 52 feet was all I used that day. Being verified by a bunch of other pilots (some his buddies even) as well as himself, made him eat a lot of crow that day. And he wasn't interested in showing us how short he could take off in his big buck hotrod Cessna either. To conclude this story, for the record I never took his money. I just told him to be more careful in the future about picking on guys with homebuilts. Especially those with two stroke engines. He still talks to me today, and occasionally teases about one day owning an Avid Flyer or Kitfox. And for further proof we can get our airplanes off short, just check out what John Knapp does at Oshkosh or Greenville with his two stroke powered Avid Flyer on floats. He holds the world record off the water, 2.7 seconds!!!! I have some video that one of these days I will load of John doing some of his takeoffs. In one, I don't think he uses more than 6 feet! Yeah, I did say SIX FEET. Play around with your takeoff techniques. These airplanes are all pretty amazing performers in the right hands (eg. Jimmy Franklin, John Knapp....) No reason you can't become that expert like with your own. And when onlookers see how well our airplanes perform, John McBean just might sell a couple more Foxes.... the more the merrier. Happy New Year! Paul Seehafer Central Wisconsin Model IV-1200 amphib 912ul oh yeah, the Avid I was flying back then was an A-model (similar to the model I kitfox), powered by a 532 Rotax. However, the airplane only weighed 396 pounds, and that little ol' 532 dyno'd bone stock at 73 horsepower. It was a real performer, like most of the earliest airplanes. ----- Original Message ----- From: Aerobatics(at)aol.com To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 8:47 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: less than 100 foot take off ... cool Less than 100 feet? calm day? Wow awesome I thought I could TO short :-) I once had a bit of snow on my runway so I could plainly see and accurately measure I also tried different things. Best I got was a bit under 200 feet on a cold day, no wind, solo, 1/2 fuel. Most were around 225 feet. I even have some on vid Full Brake full power full up elevator, release brake, after about a long second, full down to level. Adjust elevator to maintain level, then as I pass 35 mph Up to rotate. My strip is 750 feet total. So I practice this all the time. I cant imagine a KF taking off in less than 100 feet, that has to be a rush! Dave Patrick KF 2 582 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Michel Verheughe <michel(at)online.no>
Subject: Re: less than 100 foot take off ... cool
Date: Dec 28, 2006
On Dec 28, 2006, at 10:18 PM, Paul Seehafer wrote: > Why not raise the tail and rotate? Interesting reading, Paul. Of course, I won't tell you why one should raise the tail and rotate, I know much too little about aviation, I am merely reading and learning. Reading your email definitively tells me that I should try other take-off techniques than the one I use. The key element is probably that when I tried to take off with a high angle of attack, I didn't had enough speed and was pulling too much the stick. If you have ever done that, you know that it doesn't feel right and you hope nobody is watching. I think I'll have to try until I find the correct stick pressure. That's the nice thing about flying: Always something new to try, always something new to learn, always a good reason to go out flying ... Now, if someone can tell that to my wife! :-) Happy New Year, Michel ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Michel Verheughe <michel(at)online.no>
Subject: Re: Skis for Kitfox's
Date: Dec 28, 2006
On Dec 28, 2006, at 3:19 PM, Lynn Matteson wrote: > There are others out there that might be better suited to build/market > a set, and maybe your comments will stir some > activity....anyone...John, Dave, Michel? Just a second, Lynn, I'll take a crash course in welding then I'll make you a nice pair of skis ... kidding! :-) Just an idea: I think wheel penetration skis don't have to be very strong. If they are, and you hit a rock hidden under the snow, they might bend your gears. If the are not, you'll bend the skis but your wheel will still be there and that what's matter, isn't it? You can then remove the skis and fix them while the plane is ready to fly for the summer. Just a thought. Cheers, Michel ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
Subject: Michel Fabic tearing topic
Date: Dec 28, 2006
Michel, I just in from 2.5 hours flying today in total. I mentioned that i was doing airstarts after gliding the Kitfox and I thought about you today so I went up and shut off mags and slowed to about 40 ias till the prop stopped. Then came this bright idea *** oh yeah BRIGHT !! well why not do some stalls and take off the headset to hear the sounds you described before and all i heard was the air leaks !! I did about half dozen stalls -- all power off and mags too !! some steeper than others and I just get a shudder and a mush for the most part. Now once you put nose down just after you break the stall I do get a bit of a THUD from the rear........ I am guessing it the disturbed air on top of wing washing onto the tail ? Maybe if I hear air leaks then i have some taping and sealing to do some time ? Hope that helps you and it was fun........ Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel(at)online.no> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 5:03 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: less than 100 foot take off ... cool > > On Dec 28, 2006, at 10:18 PM, Paul Seehafer wrote: >> Why not raise the tail and rotate? > > Interesting reading, Paul. Of course, I won't tell you why one should > raise the tail and rotate, I know much too little about aviation, I am > merely reading and learning. Reading your email definitively tells me that > I should try other take-off techniques than the one I use. The key element > is probably that when I tried to take off with a high angle of attack, I > didn't had enough speed and was pulling too much the stick. If you have > ever done that, you know that it doesn't feel right and you hope nobody is > watching. > I think I'll have to try until I find the correct stick pressure. That's > the nice thing about flying: Always something new to try, always something > new to learn, always a good reason to go out flying ... Now, if someone > can tell that to my wife! :-) > > Happy New Year, > Michel > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
Subject: PAUL : less than 100 foot take off ... cool
Date: Dec 28, 2006
Paul, Thanks for that post. I did at least a dozen takeoffs today all definably 120 feet at the longest. I did try different flap settings and tail up tail down tail light on tailwheel etc.......... Conclusion ? Well 20 degrees stick neutral wide open throttle let go of brakes and it will fly off in 120 or less feet. This is probably the best soft/short field combo for all round use. I maintain that getting tail up so your AOA is zero and pull full flaps ( over 30 degrees is necessary to achieve best results) and at the same time you yank that flap handle FULL you yank the stick back full and if you not ready the tailwheel smacks the ground and if you ready the wings and tail are flying and the tailwheel will not smack the ground. What would you think of a longer landing gear ? say 3 to 5 inches longer extended from what I presently have ? I am not sure if that would be worth it or not. I will tell you that the guy who is doing those tests on the Zenith 701 without the Slats runs a company called www.stolspeed.com and he sells VGs called Feather Vgs . He sent me some to try after seeing my last 3 videos I posted. ( he might be on this list , I am not sure) . Anyways I will report the findings when I do in fact try them to anyone interested. I did tell him that I have a good flying Kitfox now and I did not think that the VGs will do much good for me but he sent them any ways as he liked my videos. If they work well you will know and if they don't well you will know as well. Am I told him that 701s have similar performance to a Kitfox in the STOL part but they just plain Ugly and slower. ( VERY Big Grin ) Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Seehafer To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:18 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: less than 100 foot take off ... cool Dave, Back in the late 80's and early 90's it seemed everyone with an Avid Flyer or a Kitfox was trying to outdo the other guy in the short takeoff category (other airplanes generally can't even compete with our airplanes). So to defend the STOL KING credentials of my Avid Flyer, I practiced, practiced, and practiced some more my short takeoff technique. I found what worked best is to hold brakes with full power until you feel the airplane starting to overcome the brakes (we had poor mechanical brakes way back when, so that was almost immediately), then within a few feet of the starting roll to release slight stick back pressure, just enough to let the tailwheel rise ever so slightly (a couple inches off the surface). Then just before you thought it might fly (in my airplane at the time this was just as the airspeed indicator was coming up on 20 mph), jerk the flaps on full while burying the stick in your lap. This would normally provide a "main gear first" liftoff, followed by the tailwheel. Of course as soon as you were off you had to reduce the back pressure as well as about 1/2 the flaps. But you were off very short, and in those early planes climbing out at about a 45 degree angle! The thought process behind using this technique is; 1 - The drag caused by rolling down the runway with the wing at a high angle of attack is minimal at best when you consider the very slow speeds a light Avid or Kitfox can lift off at (20-25 mph), and the short distance you rolled (50-75 feet) . 2 - With the high wing angle of attack right from the start of the roll the very high lift airfoil (especially of the early airplanes) goes to work lightening the aircraft, allowing it to fly sooner. If nothing else, it forces the lift off at the least amount of speed needed, rather than relying on the pilots judgement of the rotation time or speed. 3 - By releasing just enough back pressure to let the tailwheel skim a few inches off the ground, you've minimized wheel drag for one of the wheels, but yet maintained that high angle of attack of the wing for the most lift. 4 - When you really knew your airplane and were able to pull back on the stick and the flap handle at just the right moment, you caused a "ballooning effect" much like when you first apply flaps on a decent. That balloon effect on takeoff maximizes use of ground effect. Why not raise the tail and rotate? Well, on the early airplanes the takeoff was so quick that seemed like nothing more than a waste of time to me. Plus I was busy enough the way it was. So does this technique still apply? I think so. I'm sure someone will tell me why it won't according to some other source, but I still use it. A similar technique gets my 775 lb 912ul amphib Model 4 off the water in 8 seconds (although in that case I also raise one fly by applying full left aileron and a touch of left rudder while jerking on the stick and the flaps...). That is a very short takeoff for an amphib, especially one with only 80 horsepower that has everything but the kitchen sink on it. Unfortunately I can't tell you how it compares on wheels as I haven't yet flown my fox on wheels. But I'm sure it will do a 4-5 second takeoff on land (even without doing the math, I'm sure thats not a lot of forward distance). Here's a little story describing just how well my practiced technique worked; I once won $100 in a bet against a guy that owned a souped up 360 hp IO-550 powered 185 Cessna by having a group of other pilots measure off my Avid Flyers takeoff. He said there was no way I could take off in a hundred feet (the claim I made to the group that he overheard) and went on to make jokes about my snowmobilie motor powered toy airplane. Of course I had to defend the Avid, so I bet him $100 I could do it in less than a hundred feet, and certainly shorter than he could with his hot rod Cessna. Oh yeah, we had a density altitude at the time of almost 4,000 feet as it was 90+ degrees out (with essentially no wind). So the group of other pilots hanging around the airport measure for me, as I took off sideways on a taxiway (the airport manager knew me and my plane well, so went along with my little escapade). 52 feet was all I used that day. Being verified by a bunch of other pilots (some his buddies even) as well as himself, made him eat a lot of crow that day. And he wasn't interested in showing us how short he could take off in his big buck hotrod Cessna either. To conclude this story, for the record I never took his money. I just told him to be more careful in the future about picking on guys with homebuilts. Especially those with two stroke engines. He still talks to me today, and occasionally teases about one day owning an Avid Flyer or Kitfox. And for further proof we can get our airplanes off short, just check out what John Knapp does at Oshkosh or Greenville with his two stroke powered Avid Flyer on floats. He holds the world record off the water, 2.7 seconds!!!! I have some video that one of these days I will load of John doing some of his takeoffs. In one, I don't think he uses more than 6 feet! Yeah, I did say SIX FEET. Play around with your takeoff techniques. These airplanes are all pretty amazing performers in the right hands (eg. Jimmy Franklin, John Knapp....) No reason you can't become that expert like with your own. And when onlookers see how well our airplanes perform, John McBean just might sell a couple more Foxes.... the more the merrier. Happy New Year! Paul Seehafer Central Wisconsin Model IV-1200 amphib 912ul oh yeah, the Avid I was flying back then was an A-model (similar to the model I kitfox), powered by a 532 Rotax. However, the airplane only weighed 396 pounds, and that little ol' 532 dyno'd bone stock at 73 horsepower. It was a real performer, like most of the earliest airplanes. ----- Original Message ----- From: Aerobatics(at)aol.com To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 8:47 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: less than 100 foot take off ... cool Less than 100 feet? calm day? Wow awesome I thought I could TO short :-) I once had a bit of snow on my runway so I could plainly see and accurately measure I also tried different things. Best I got was a bit under 200 feet on a cold day, no wind, solo, 1/2 fuel. Most were around 225 feet. I even have some on vid Full Brake full power full up elevator, release brake, after about a long second, full down to level. Adjust elevator to maintain level, then as I pass 35 mph Up to rotate. My strip is 750 feet total. So I practice this all the time. I cant imagine a KF taking off in less than 100 feet, that has to be a rush! Dave Patrick KF 2 582 href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Eric" <iworonko(at)cox.net>
Subject: GSC prop protractor
Date: Dec 28, 2006
Does anyone have a GSC prop protractor that they no longer need. I would like to buy it. Eric ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Kit Fox Tires only $2.50?
Date: Dec 28, 2006
Been out of town. Interesting getting cought up with the Kitfox list stuff. Regarding these tires. I don't recall when I put them on my airplane, but found some pictures John McBean took at the Cameron Park fly-in of 2003 and it looks like they were on the airplane then. I have 360 hours on the airplane since that fly-in and at least that many landings as I have averaged at least one landing per hour. Most landings have been on pavement with some really rough stuff in the Idaho trips. I keep them at 10 psi. So far no flats and no cords showing. That is what I will use to determind thier service life. I have a replacement set, otherwise I would be an instant buyer. Lowell N96KL Model IV ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Possible overheating and EGT question
From: "wingnut" <wingnut(at)spamarrest.com>
Date: Dec 28, 2006
I discovered a small puddle of coolant under my airplane this morning. I had spent the previous day practicing in the pattern for almost two hours and Im wondering if the constant "touch & go" with all that time at full throttle caused it to overheat. I'm ashamed to say that I did not notice if any of the gauges where indicating anything out of the ordinary. I ran her up on the ground for a while and could not reproduce the leak so I tried a few turns around the pattern keeping a close eye on the gauges. As usual the EGT runs near the upper range of the gauge during takeoff at 1600F. I didn't used to worry about that because it's still just shy of max and it always cools off once I level out for cruise. Today though, I noticed that it stayed up at 1600 on the downwind leg coming down only when I pulled back to idle before the base turn. Is this normal behavior for EGT? Should I bump the mixture a bit? If I do adjust the mixture, how do I keep the two carbs in sync? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84061#84061 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Skis for Kitfox's
From: "Richard Rabbers" <rira1950(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 28, 2006
Skiplane fly in - Jan. 27th 2007 - probably a pretty good opportunity to check out various ski set ups. http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/061221_skiplane.html -------- Richard in SW Michigan Model 1 / 618 - full-lotus floats (restoration) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84076#84076 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>
Subject: Re: Skis for Kitfox's
Date: Dec 28, 2006
That's a long term goal for me, if I can get mine done by then...be a shame to build skis and then find better ideas there, though. Lynn On Dec 28, 2006, at 7:22 PM, Richard Rabbers wrote: > > > Skiplane fly in - Jan. 27th 2007 > - probably a pretty good opportunity to check out various ski set ups. > > http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/061221_skiplane.html > > -------- > Richard in SW Michigan > Model 1 / 618 - full-lotus floats (restoration) > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84076#84076 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "john perry" <eskflyer(at)lvcisp.com>
Subject: Re: Skis for Kitfox's
Date: Dec 28, 2006
Dave where in the heck are you buying your 4130 cuzz i am not paying that much 7/8 .035 is only $2.59 a foot and if i buy more than 100 feet i get it cheaper . Fly safe fly low fly slow and quick takeoffs to all. John Perry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
Subject: Re: Skis for Kitfox's
Date: Dec 28, 2006
.875 x 035 wall is 4.50 a foot here.......... If I ordered form Wicks or spruce it would be near 50% to 100% more that price FOB there due to the customs brokers and couriers sticking it to us........ Like i said on average 4130 is >4130 is 3 to 5 $ a foot alone. you will need 20 to 25 feet per ski<< Now our money is about 12 % differance plus duty in Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: "john perry" <eskflyer(at)lvcisp.com> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:56 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > Dave where in the heck are you buying your 4130 cuzz i am not paying that > much 7/8 .035 is only $2.59 a foot and if i buy more than 100 feet i get > it cheaper . > > Fly safe fly low fly slow and quick takeoffs to all. > > John Perry > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "john perry" <eskflyer(at)lvcisp.com>
Subject: Re: Skis for Kitfox's
Date: Dec 28, 2006
OMG , That is horrible Dave , We need to just load our planes with the stuff as we fly over and just say its spare parts for our own planes if we have trouble lol . and stock it at your place . Take care fly safe fly snow John Perry ----- Original Message ----- From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:15 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > .875 x 035 wall is 4.50 a foot here.......... > If I ordered form Wicks or spruce it would be near 50% to 100% more that > price FOB there due to the customs brokers and couriers sticking it to > us........ > > > Like i said on average 4130 is >>4130 is 3 to 5 $ a foot alone. > you will need 20 to 25 feet per ski<< > > Now our money is about 12 % differance plus duty in Canada > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "john perry" <eskflyer(at)lvcisp.com> > To: > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:56 PM > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > >> >> Dave where in the heck are you buying your 4130 cuzz i am not paying that >> much 7/8 .035 is only $2.59 a foot and if i buy more than 100 feet i get >> it cheaper . >> >> Fly safe fly low fly slow and quick takeoffs to all. >> >> John Perry >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question
From: "wingnut" <wingnut(at)spamarrest.com>
Date: Dec 28, 2006
Duh. Sorry 912UL. Is it typical for EGT to hit max at full throttle? Water and oil temps are nominal as is oil pressure. Another thing worries me is that this Westach combo gauge only goes up to 1600F. It looks like the needle is free to move beyond 1600 but there's no way to be sure. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84105#84105 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: less than 100 foot take off ... cool
Date: Dec 28, 2006
Paul: Being a float flyer I really want to see that one!!!! Noel And for further proof we can get our airplanes off short, just check out what John Knapp does at Oshkosh or Greenville with his two stroke powered Avid Flyer on floats. He holds the world record off the water, 2.7 seconds!!!! I have some video that one of these days I will load of John doing some of his takeoffs. In one, I don't think he uses more than 6 feet! Yeah, I did say SIX FEET. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question
Date: Dec 28, 2006
Sounds like you might be a bit lean. Also the cool dense air is making your engine run even leaner. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of wingnut > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:17 PM > To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question > > > > Duh. Sorry 912UL. > Is it typical for EGT to hit max at full throttle? Water and > oil temps are nominal as is oil pressure. Another thing > worries me is that this Westach combo gauge only goes up to > 1600F. It looks like the needle is free to move beyond 1600 > but there's no way to be sure. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84105#84105 > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "john perry" <eskflyer(at)lvcisp.com>
Subject: wing tank model 2-3
Date: Dec 28, 2006
I am looking for a wingtank for the Model 2 -3 , 13.5 gallon needs to be a left tank . Wahoo supposed to snow this weekend will be fun on skis for some of us . John Perry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ron schick" <roncarolnikko(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Kit Fox Tires only $2.50?
Date: Dec 28, 2006
Glad to hear that Lowell! My two sets arrived today and I must say I'm impressed. If these were "yellow tagged" they would cost a fortune. How much speed did you lose changing to the bigger tires. Since the Kitfox has the speed wing I may try to put them on my stol Avid first. Hafta lose the nosewheel first or it just wouldn't look right. Ron NB Ore >From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net> >Reply-To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kit Fox Tires only $2.50? >Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:13:56 -0800 > > >Been out of town. Interesting getting cought up with the Kitfox list >stuff. > >Regarding these tires. I don't recall when I put them on my airplane, but >found some pictures John McBean took at the Cameron Park fly-in of 2003 and >it looks like they were on the airplane then. > >I have 360 hours on the airplane since that fly-in and at least that many >landings as I have averaged at least one landing per hour. Most landings >have been on pavement with some really rough stuff in the Idaho trips. I >keep them at 10 psi. > >So far no flats and no cords showing. That is what I will use to determind >thier service life. I have a replacement set, otherwise I would be an >instant buyer. > >Lowell N96KL Model IV > > _________________________________________________________________ Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Re: Skis for Kitfox's
Date: Dec 28, 2006
Dave: The floor jack is a good idea for getting in and out of the shop but wouldn't help me get it on the trailer. I have been considering bulling a bit of snow up with my J5 and pulling the plane directly onto the trailer. The WX here is a bit colder here today but we are a good ways off seeing the bay freeze over. I'm not planning on taking the floats off until it is well and truly frozen... We are only about 12 WK away from spring break-up..... Of course in this part of the world spring break-up occurs when the ice breakers come in to open the bay for lobster fishing. Late march... Fresh water may not open until mid April. The last few years have been pretty poor for ski flying... Less snow and no sea ice. Inland you can land just about any where. There are laws that don't permit the building of roads close to ponds so getting the plane off a trailer in location that is usable for flying can be fun. The last owner used to tow the plane behind his snowmobile about a half a mile to a frozen bog he used as a strip. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of dave > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:54 AM > To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > > > Noel, > NO chance of 500 $ unless you talking EACH !! > > 4130 is 3 to 5 $ a foot alone. > you will need 20 to 25 feet per ski > > UHMW is about 3 to 4 $ a square foot. > 10 sq feet needed. > > Am I missing somthing ? > > Also ........ A tip to move in shot on skis ..... use a 2 x > 6 that fits > under the axles and between the calipers and put on a floor > jack . lift up > a few inches and pull the plane on floor jack . If you have > a tail ski it > will drag ok or put a dolly under the tail ski. > > Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question
From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor(at)online.no>
Hi Luis, (not sure about your name) Funny this thing, as I thought I'll write some- about the EGT system before the New Year. Hmmm... The thing is that, the EGT system is measuring differential temperature. Ok., the system that is used for measuring the exhaust gas temperature is measuring temperature difference, NOT absolute temperature!! Well, it is measuring the temperature difference between the cockpit(inside cockpit temperature -NOT the OAT!) and the EGT probe temperature. But you'll know, the temperature in the cockpit may change -then your EGT reading change too!!! To know your correct EGT temperature (at the probe) it important to know the cockpit temperature. So now, I'm wondering :) how many of you are using a true cockpit thermometer? Some of you might have the double temperature meter, that measure the inside and outside temperature (with ice warning) for cars? This is indeed a good idea (if you checked that the readings are correct) as this can be used to calculate your "true" EGT. The ting is that, your EGT system is calibrated at a known temperature! Do you know this temperature for your instrument??? Now, think about this "calibration temperature" as a line across a standard mercury meter scale, if your cockpit temperature is above this line -your meter is reading to low! This is because the meter (and the calibration point) is moving towards the EGT probe temperature, see less difference I.E. reading to low. The other way around, no cockpit heater (or a poor heater), I'm trying to say that the cockpit temperature is below the "calibration value". In this case, the indicated value will show to high, so we think that we are boosting the red line. But indeed we should subtract the "absolute" value of the reading BELOW the "calibration value" line. In this latter case, our reading will be to high. Ok., to summarize; in the winter time our reading will be to high, -and in the summer time our reading will be to low, IF OUR COCKPIT TEMPERATURE DIFFER/VARY WITH SEASONS FROM THE INSTRUMENTS CALIBRATION TEMPERATURE. If you have a temperature controlled de luxe heater that can maintain, say 23 deg. Celsius in the cockpit -everything become so much more simple. :) :) (I'll add a little bit more about this later.) Now to your engine: Doing touch and go is without doubt a real hard work for your engine, esp. in the winter time. As the temperature is going a lot down, and maybe it's CAVOK(a high pressure), in this situ. your engine got lot's of more O2 -meaning better combustion and higher temperature. Yes, we've to enrich to keep the temperature in the green (one notch up and..). So this is why we have more power during the winter season. (Sure that's more to say here..). Also, as the air molecules is closer together we would have a better lift as well. (Hey, winter flying is more fun!!) In the winter time, cooling is also allot better, so this will normally not occur, unless there is another problem. (If not, check your thermostat.) A last word, after such a hard work for your engine it is a good practice to let the engine idle for some time to take the heath out. If not, we often see that the engine start boiling after shut down. (Hint; this is always a must for a turbo engine). Torgeir. > > I discovered a small puddle of coolant under my airplane this morning. I > had spent the previous day practicing in the pattern for almost two > hours and Im wondering if the constant "touch & go" with all that > time at full throttle caused it to overheat. I'm ashamed to say that I > did not notice if any of the gauges where indicating anything out of the > ordinary. > > I ran her up on the ground for a while and could not reproduce the leak > so I tried a few turns around the pattern keeping a close eye on the > gauges. As usual the EGT runs near the upper range of the gauge during > takeoff at 1600F. I didn't used to worry about that because it's still > just shy of max and it always cools off once I level out for cruise. > Today though, I noticed that it stayed up at 1600 on the downwind leg > coming down only when I pulled back to idle before the base turn. > > Is this normal behavior for EGT? Should I bump the mixture a bit? If I > do adjust the mixture, how do I keep the two carbs in sync? > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84061#84061 > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: wing tank model 2-3
Date: Dec 28, 2006
John: My plane has a 6 Gal U.S. tank on the left side and a 13.5 Gal. U.S. on the right. I was wondering if you can think of a good reason for this configuration.... Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > john perry > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:08 PM > To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 > > > > I am looking for a wingtank for the Model 2 -3 , 13.5 > gallon needs to > be a left tank . > > Wahoo supposed to snow this weekend will be fun on skis for > some of us . > > John Perry > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rexster" <runwayrex(at)juno.com>
Date: Dec 29, 2006
Subject: wing tank model 2-3
When I bought my model 3 kit in 1990, I did all the option paperwork wit h Dan Denney at Oshkosh. He recommended I go with 6 gallons on my side a nd 13 on the right because we often fly solo and the extra fuel on the r ight side helps to balance things out. A couple months into the project, I sent the six gallon tank back and replaced it with another 13. I'm gl ad I did. I've never noticed an imbalance when flying solo. Rex in Michigan -- "Noel Loveys" wrote: John: My plane has a 6 Gal U.S. tank on the left side and a 13.5 Gal. U.S. on the right. I was wondering if you can think of a good reason for this configuration.... Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > john perry > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:08 PM > To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 > > > > I am looking for a wingtank for the Model 2 -3 , 13.5 > gallon needs to > be a left tank . > > Wahoo supposed to snow this weekend will be fun on skis for > some of us . > > John Perry > > > > > > ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ======================== ===========

When I bought my model 3 kit in 1990, I did all the option paperwork with Dan Denney at Oshkosh. He recommended I go with 6 gallon s on my side and 13 on the right because we often fly solo and the extra fuel on the right side helps to balance things out. A couple months int o the project, I sent the six gallon tank back and replaced it with anot her 13. I'm glad I did. I've never noticed an imbalance when flying solo .

Rex in Michigan

 



-- "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>&n bsp;wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by:& nbsp;"Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>

John:

My plane has a 6 Gal U.S. tank&n bsp;on the left side and a 13.5 Gal.& nbsp;U.S. on the
right.  I was wonderin g if you can think of a good rea son for this
configuration....

Noel



& gt; -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-k itfox-list-server(at)matronics.com 
> [mailto:owner-kitfox- list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of 
>&nbs p;john perry
> Sent: Thursday, December 2 8, 2006 11:08 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matron ics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: wing tank  ;model 2-3


> --> Kit fox-List message posted by: "john perry" & lt;eskflyer(at)lvcisp.com>

> I am loo king for a wingtank for the Model 2&n bsp;-3 ,     13.5 
> gallo n   needs to 
> be a left& nbsp;tank .

> Wahoo supposed to& nbsp;snow this weekend will be fun on  ;skis for 
> some of us .
>&nb sp;
> John Perry


>&nbs ======================== ======================== sp;   - The Kitfox-List Email Forum&n  utilities such as the Subscriptions page, ======================== ========================      - NEW MATRONICS WEB FO ======================== ======================== ======


      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "john perry" <eskflyer(at)lvcisp.com>
Subject: Re: wing tank model 2-3
Date: Dec 28, 2006
Noel My only guess is builder did not want more weight ?. I have the 10 gallon front tank and 13.5 gallon right tank and would really like a left tank also for those LONNNNNG flight days when i want to go far and fuel is not available . Fly safe John Perry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: wing tank model 2-3
Date: Dec 29, 2006
What I have is the 6 and the 13.5 with a header of 2 Gal. ( all U.S.) I've had flights of 3 hr with a good half hr. of reserve but at the low speeds of these planes that's not a lot of range. I generally carry another 12 gal in the right float if I'm going any distance. 3 Gal U.S. Jerry cans are great for that. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > john perry > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 12:16 AM > To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 > > > > Noel > My only guess is builder did not want more weight ?. I have > the 10 gallon > front tank and 13.5 gallon right tank and would really like a > left tank also > for those LONNNNNG flight days when i want to go far and fuel is not > available . > > Fly safe > John Perry > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question
From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor(at)online.no>
Hi again, Just a little important note. When I said one notch up, I meant one notch to bring the needle up having more rich mixture. To actually do this, the locking ring has to go one notch down on the needle itself... Sorry, but do not want any confusion here. Torgeir. wrote: > > > Hi Luis, (not sure about your name) > > Funny this thing, as I thought I'll write some- about the EGT system > before the New Year. Hmmm... > > The thing is that, the EGT system is measuring differential temperature. > Ok., the system that is used for measuring the exhaust gas temperature > is measuring temperature difference, NOT absolute temperature!! > > Well, it is measuring the temperature difference between the > cockpit(inside cockpit temperature -NOT the OAT!) and the EGT probe > temperature. > > But you'll know, the temperature in the cockpit may change -then your > EGT reading change too!!! > > To know your correct EGT temperature (at the probe) it important to know > the cockpit temperature. > > So now, I'm wondering :) how many of you are using a true cockpit > thermometer? > > Some of you might have the double temperature meter, that measure the > inside and outside temperature (with ice warning) for cars? > > This is indeed a good idea (if you checked that the readings are > correct) as this can be used to calculate your "true" EGT. > > The ting is that, your EGT system is calibrated at a known temperature! > Do you know this temperature for your instrument??? > > Now, think about this "calibration temperature" as a line across a > standard mercury meter scale, if your cockpit temperature is above this > line -your meter is reading to low! > > This is because the meter (and the calibration point) is moving towards > the EGT probe temperature, see less difference I.E. reading to low. > > The other way around, no cockpit heater (or a poor heater), I'm trying > to say that the cockpit temperature is below the "calibration value". > In this case, the indicated value will show to high, so we think that we > are boosting the red line. But indeed we should subtract the "absolute" > value of the reading BELOW the "calibration value" line. > > In this latter case, our reading will be to high. > > Ok., to summarize; in the winter time our reading will be to high, -and > in the summer time our reading will be to low, IF OUR COCKPIT > TEMPERATURE DIFFER/VARY WITH SEASONS FROM THE INSTRUMENTS CALIBRATION > TEMPERATURE. > > If you have a temperature controlled de luxe heater that can maintain, > say 23 deg. Celsius in the cockpit -everything become so much more > simple. :) :) > > (I'll add a little bit more about this later.) > > Now to your engine: > > Doing touch and go is without doubt a real hard work for your engine, > esp. in the winter time. > > As the temperature is going a lot down, and maybe it's CAVOK(a high > pressure), in this situ. your engine got lot's of more O2 -meaning > better combustion and higher temperature. Yes, we've to enrich to keep > the temperature in the green (one notch up and..). So this is why we > have more power during the winter season. (Sure that's more to say > here..). > > Also, as the air molecules is closer together we would have a better > lift as well. (Hey, winter flying is more fun!!) > > In the winter time, cooling is also allot better, so this will normally > not occur, unless there is another problem. (If not, check your > thermostat.) > > A last word, after such a hard work for your engine it is a good > practice to let the engine idle for some time to take the heath out. If > not, we often see that the engine start boiling after shut down. (Hint; > this is always a must for a turbo engine). > > > Torgeir. > > > wrote: > >> >> I discovered a small puddle of coolant under my airplane this morning. >> I had spent the previous day practicing in the pattern for almost two >> hours and Im wondering if the constant "touch & go" with all that >> time at full throttle caused it to overheat. I'm ashamed to say that I >> did not notice if any of the gauges where indicating anything out of >> the ordinary. >> >> I ran her up on the ground for a while and could not reproduce the leak >> so I tried a few turns around the pattern keeping a close eye on the >> gauges. As usual the EGT runs near the upper range of the gauge during >> takeoff at 1600F. I didn't used to worry about that because it's still >> just shy of max and it always cools off once I level out for cruise. >> Today though, I noticed that it stayed up at 1600 on the downwind leg >> coming down only when I pulled back to idle before the base turn. >> >> Is this normal behavior for EGT? Should I bump the mixture a bit? If I >> do adjust the mixture, how do I keep the two carbs in sync? >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84061#84061 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question
From: "wingnut" <wingnut(at)spamarrest.com>
Date: Dec 28, 2006
> When I said one notch up, I meant one notch to bring the needle up having > more rich mixture. > > To actually do this, the locking ring has to go one notch down on the > needle itself... OK. Now I'm really confused. You wouldn't happen to know where I can find an illustration of what you are talking about? Also, when adjusting the mixture at the carb, how does one ensure that the two carbs stay in sync? -Luis -824KF Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84145#84145 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rexster" <runwayrex(at)juno.com>
Date: Dec 29, 2006
Subject: Possible overheating and EGT question
OK. Now I'm really confused. You wouldn't happen to know where I can fin d an illustration of what you are talking about? Also, when adjusting th e mixture at the carb, how does one ensure that the two carbs stay in sy nc? Luis, Did you get my earlier response (off line)? Changing the needle positions on the carbs does not have any affect on the carb syncronization. Check out either the Rotax parts catalog or the overhaul manual. Both show the needle and clip relationship in diagr ams. Rex in Michigan -Luis -824KF Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84145#84145 ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ======================== ===========

OK. Now I'm really confused. You& nbsp;wouldn't happen to know where I can&n bsp;find an illustration of what you are&n bsp;talking about? Also, when adjusting the&nbs p;mixture at the carb, how does one e nsure that the two carbs stay in sync ?

Luis,

    Did you get my earlier response (off line)?
&nb sp;   Changing the needle positions on the carbs does not have any affect on the carb syncronization. Check out either the Rotax parts catalog or the overhaul manual. Both show the needle and clip relations hip in diagrams.

Rex in Michigan


-Luis
-824KF




Read t his topic online here:

http://forums.matronics.com ======================== ========================     - The Kitfox-List Email Foru ist utilities such as the Subscriptions pa ======================== ======================== sp;     - NEW MATRONICS WEB  ======================== ======================== =======

      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GSC prop protractor
From: "Tom Jones" <nahsikhs(at)elltel.net>
Date: Dec 29, 2006
Eric, I have a GSC protractor that you can have. Let me know where to send it. Tom Jones tomfromlapine(at)peoplepc.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84182#84182 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question
Date: Dec 29, 2006
All you will ever want to know about Rotax engines http://www.ultralightnews.ca/ There is a diagram on the left side of this page half way down Bing 54 http://www.ultralightnews.com/enginemaintenance/bingjet.html Or http://www.ultralightnews.ca/bing/index.html And To sync the 912 carbs. http://www.ultralightnews.ca/bing/912carbsync.html Hope this helps. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of wingnut > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 1:40 AM > To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question > > > > > > When I said one notch up, I meant one notch to bring the > needle up having > > more rich mixture. > > > > To actually do this, the locking ring has to go one notch > down on the > > needle itself... > > OK. Now I'm really confused. You wouldn't happen to know > where I can find an illustration of what you are talking > about? Also, when adjusting the mixture at the carb, how does > one ensure that the two carbs stay in sync? > > -Luis > -824KF > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84145#84145 > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "howard" <rv73hl(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Fuel Flw
Date: Dec 29, 2006
My Model IV 1200, has been feeding fuel from the right tank with gas in the left also. I finally deceided to run to see if the gas would transfer. Luckly for me, it stopped on final at our airport. The left tank had gas in it. It would not start, we added gas to the right tank, and after a few minutes on choke, it started. Question...what would cause the tanks not to flow evenly. We had check the lines, and they all flowed. I would think the tanks would level up when sitting on the ground, but they do not seem to cross flow. Suggestions please. Howard ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Kit Fox Tires only $2.50?
Date: Dec 29, 2006
Ron, That is a good question. I don't actually know as I didn't pay that much attention. My guess, though less than 3 mph. I would be interested in your experience. Lowell N96KL Mod IV ----- Original Message ----- From: "ron schick" <roncarolnikko(at)hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:46 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kit Fox Tires only $2.50? > > > Glad to hear that Lowell! My two sets arrived today and I must say I'm > impressed. If these were "yellow tagged" they would cost a fortune. How > much speed did you lose changing to the bigger tires. Since the Kitfox > has the speed wing I may try to put them on my stol Avid first. Hafta > lose the nosewheel first or it just wouldn't look right. > Ron NB Ore > > >>From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net> >>Reply-To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com >>To: >>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kit Fox Tires only $2.50? >>Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:13:56 -0800 >> >> >>Been out of town. Interesting getting cought up with the Kitfox list >>stuff. >> >>Regarding these tires. I don't recall when I put them on my airplane, but >>found some pictures John McBean took at the Cameron Park fly-in of 2003 >>and it looks like they were on the airplane then. >> >>I have 360 hours on the airplane since that fly-in and at least that many >>landings as I have averaged at least one landing per hour. Most landings >>have been on pavement with some really rough stuff in the Idaho trips. I >>keep them at 10 psi. >> >>So far no flats and no cords showing. That is what I will use to >>determind thier service life. I have a replacement set, otherwise I would >>be an instant buyer. >> >>Lowell N96KL Model IV >> >> >> >> >> > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page > www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question
Date: Dec 29, 2006
Torgeir, I have understood, as you say, that the the EGT probe is measuring a differential temperature between the probe and the end of the metal shielded lead. My lead does not terminate in the cockpit, although there is sufficient length to do so. The leads on the Lancair IV I am helping with are too short to enter the cockpit We coiled the leads aft of the first two cylinders so the leads terminate in the same relative location, but they are in the engine compartment. These airplanes are built to fly in the flight levels so positioning the terminals above the baffling would give the reference temps a great fluctuation. They are positioned below the baffles of necessity due to their length. Your thoughts. Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor(at)online.no> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:55 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question > > > Hi Luis, (not sure about your name) > > Funny this thing, as I thought I'll write some- about the EGT system > before the New Year. Hmmm... > > The thing is that, the EGT system is measuring differential temperature. > Ok., the system that is used for measuring the exhaust gas temperature is > measuring temperature difference, NOT absolute temperature!! > > Well, it is measuring the temperature difference between the > cockpit(inside cockpit temperature -NOT the OAT!) and the EGT probe > temperature. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: wing tank model 2-3
Date: Dec 29, 2006
Noel, In the early days of small instrument panel and panel tank kitfoxes, the wing tanks were available options. The tanks were in two sizes as you mention. My guess is that with the light weights of the early airplanes, it was considered wise to put the large tank on the mostly empty passenger seat side and the small tank on the pilot side for lateral ballance. Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:18 PM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 > > John: > > My plane has a 6 Gal U.S. tank on the left side and a 13.5 Gal. U.S. on > the > right. I was wondering if you can think of a good reason for this > configuration.... > > Noel > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of >> john perry >> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:08 PM >> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 >> >> >> >> I am looking for a wingtank for the Model 2 -3 , 13.5 >> gallon needs to >> be a left tank . >> >> Wahoo supposed to snow this weekend will be fun on skis for >> some of us . >> >> John Perry >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
Subject: Re: wing tank model 2-3
Date: Dec 29, 2006
Lowell, What do you think of a tank that could be mounted behind the seat ? Custon made of course but you could get I would guess 5 to 10 gal capacity there. I have taken may times 3 of the 2 imp container there. so an extra 30 litres or so. My Baggage sack is tie wrapped in with eyelets in the canvas not velcro-ed like some. I have thought of making a new baggage compartment that is solid with a side door and might do this winter. My floats are handy for extra fuel cans as well. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:33 AM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 > > Noel, > > In the early days of small instrument panel and panel tank kitfoxes, the > wing tanks were available options. The tanks were in two sizes as you > mention. My guess is that with the light weights of the early airplanes, > it was considered wise to put the large tank on the mostly empty passenger > seat side and the small tank on the pilot side for lateral ballance. > > Lowell > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> > To: > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:18 PM > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 > > >> >> John: >> >> My plane has a 6 Gal U.S. tank on the left side and a 13.5 Gal. U.S. on >> the >> right. I was wondering if you can think of a good reason for this >> configuration.... >> >> Noel >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com >>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of >>> john perry >>> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:08 PM >>> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com >>> Subject: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 >>> >>> >>> >>> I am looking for a wingtank for the Model 2 -3 , 13.5 >>> gallon needs to >>> be a left tank . >>> >>> Wahoo supposed to snow this weekend will be fun on skis for >>> some of us . >>> >>> John Perry >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>
Subject: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question
Date: Dec 29, 2006
Lowell- I think what Torgeir said was that the EGT reading is a differential between the probe and the cockpit temp. My understanding of my EIS is that it references the unit temperature...that is, the temp of the EIS "unit" itself, and any other temp that you are monitoring. If Torgeir was not talking about the EIS unit, this comment may not apply. Lynn On Dec 29, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Lowell Fitt wrote: > > > Torgeir, > > I have understood, as you say, that the the EGT probe is measuring > a differential temperature between the probe and the end of the > metal shielded lead. My lead does not terminate in the cockpit, > although there is sufficient length to do so. The leads on the > Lancair IV I am helping with are too short to enter the cockpit We > coiled the leads aft of the first two cylinders so the leads > terminate in the same relative location, but they are in the engine > compartment. These airplanes are built to fly in the flight levels > so positioning the terminals above the baffling would give the > reference temps a great fluctuation. They are positioned below the > baffles of necessity due to their length. > > Your thoughts. > > Lowell > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torgeir Mortensen" > > To: > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:55 PM > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question > > >> >> >> Hi Luis, (not sure about your name) >> >> Funny this thing, as I thought I'll write some- about the EGT >> system before the New Year. Hmmm... >> >> The thing is that, the EGT system is measuring differential >> temperature. Ok., the system that is used for measuring the >> exhaust gas temperature is measuring temperature difference, NOT >> absolute temperature!! >> >> Well, it is measuring the temperature difference between the >> cockpit(inside cockpit temperature -NOT the OAT!) and the EGT >> probe temperature. >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: kerrjohna(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Fuel Flw
Date: Dec 29, 2006
a similar experience was found to be caused by an undiscovered kink in the left hose when the wing was swung forward into flight position. we did not make it back to the airport but landed in a nearby hayfield -------------- Original message -------------- From: "howard" <rv73hl(at)comcast.net> My Model IV 1200, has been feeding fuel from the right tank with gas in the left also. I finally deceided to run to see if the gas would transfer. Luckly for me, it stopped on final at our airport. The left tank had gas in it. It would not start, we added gas to the right tank, and after a few minutes on choke, it started. Question...what would cause the tanks not to flow evenly. We had check the lines, and they all flowed. I would think the tanks would level up when sitting on the ground, but they do not seem to cross flow. Suggestions please. Howard
a similar experience was found to be caused by an undiscovered kink in the left hose when the wing was swung forward into flight position.  we did not make it back to the airport but landed in a nearby hayfield
 
My Model IV 1200, has been feeding fuel from the right tank with gas in the left also.  I finally deceided to run to see if the gas would transfer.  Luckly for me, it stopped on final at our airport.  The left tank had gas in it.  It would not start, we added gas to the right tank, and after a few minutes on choke, it started.
 
Question...what would cause the tanks not to flow evenly.  We had check the lines, and they all flowed.  I would think the tanks would level up when sitting on the ground, but they do not seem to cross flow.
 
Suggestions please.
 
Howard

      
      
      

      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "JC Propellerdesign" <propellerdesign(at)tele2.se>
Subject: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question
Date: Dec 29, 2006
What I understand is that the reading is between the probe inside the exhaust tube, and the part of the wire closest to the probe, that's why it work better if it get cold air flow over the wires. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: Lynn Matteson To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 4:56 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question Lowell- I think what Torgeir said was that the EGT reading is a differential between the probe and the cockpit temp. My understanding of my EIS is that it references the unit temperature...that is, the temp of the EIS "unit" itself, and any other temp that you are monitoring. If Torgeir was not talking about the EIS unit, this comment may not apply. Lynn On Dec 29, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Lowell Fitt wrote: > > > Torgeir, > > I have understood, as you say, that the the EGT probe is measuring > a differential temperature between the probe and the end of the > metal shielded lead. My lead does not terminate in the cockpit, > although there is sufficient length to do so. The leads on the > Lancair IV I am helping with are too short to enter the cockpit We > coiled the leads aft of the first two cylinders so the leads > terminate in the same relative location, but they are in the engine > compartment. These airplanes are built to fly in the flight levels > so positioning the terminals above the baffling would give the > reference temps a great fluctuation. They are positioned below the > baffles of necessity due to their length. > > Your thoughts. > > Lowell > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torgeir Mortensen" > > To: > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:55 PM > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question > > >> >> >> Hi Luis, (not sure about your name) >> >> Funny this thing, as I thought I'll write some- about the EGT >> system before the New Year. Hmmm... >> >> The thing is that, the EGT system is measuring differential >> temperature. Ok., the system that is used for measuring the >> exhaust gas temperature is measuring temperature difference, NOT >> absolute temperature!! >> >> Well, it is measuring the temperature difference between the >> cockpit(inside cockpit temperature -NOT the OAT!) and the EGT >> probe temperature. >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Todd Leiss" <tleiss(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: GSC prop protractor
Date: Dec 29, 2006
Sir, If your the Eric from Merrit Island Airport, Your welcome to borrow mine. Todd Leiss ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Sent: 12/28/2006 5:53:17 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: GSC prop protractor Does anyone have a GSC prop protractor that they no longer need. I would like to buy it. Eric ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question
From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor(at)online.no>
I was afraid about that you'll become confused. Sorry for this. Well, you was talking about over temp. due to the fact that some of the coolant escaped through the overflow, right. You did not state engine type, but I'll guess it's a 912? An unsynchronized carb. most often create vibration and rough running engine, due to different mixture between the two sides of the boxer engine. This can sometimes be seen as a "big" difference in EGT reading between the cylinder pairs (L/R side pairs differing to much). Your problem is prob. due to winter operation -but, and your engine might run lean, this increase the water temperature. Or ?, this might be related to the cooling system itself, water pockets, water pump or sometimes just a little lo on the water level ?? Well, you've already got "manual" references, so wishing you good luck. Torgeir. > > >> When I said one notch up, I meant one notch to bring the needle up >> having >> more rich mixture. >> >> To actually do this, the locking ring has to go one notch down on the >> needle itself... > > OK. Now I'm really confused. You wouldn't happen to know where I can > find an illustration of what you are talking about? Also, when adjusting > the mixture at the carb, how does one ensure that the two carbs stay in > sync? > > -Luis > -824KF > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84145#84145 > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question
From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor(at)online.no>
You're correct Lowell, the cold junction is at the connection point of the thermocouple harness. This is the "harness" that's connected directly to the probe. Normally, this two wires "Chromel and Alumel" is connected directly to the indicator, this is why "the cold junction point" normally is referred to the indicator location. However, now an then wires need to be changed or modified for various reasons. In your case, the thermocouple harness is to short. Normally we would order an extended thermocouple. Often we find them in three different lengths, but all of them has the same resistance, if you measure them with the EGT probe immersed into a mixture of ice and water. If this mixture is stirred, it's the lab. definition of zero degrees Celsius, the freezing point. In fact folk, we're using this method to really calibrate accurate those big jet engines EGT systems, and here we're talking about a different of one tent of a degree!! The connection method Westberg (or nowadays Westach) use is the so called "uncertain method", which is good enough for the kind of use they mention! I've attached a little picture from their web site, that's show this method very well. Anyway, the cold junction temperature Westach use is 70 Deg. F., or 21.11 Deg Celsius. This is their way of philosophy, cause most operation take place in this temperature area, so the end result "might" not be to far away if the cold junction is ignored. The other calibration point they are using is the zero degrees Celsius reference, this is in fact the standard cold junction reference point, did you know that the "Chromel/Alumel" give 0 VDC at this temperature?? Handy, isnt? Now back to your problem, the short thermocouple harness. Do you know the actual resistance for his cable(this value is often stamped on the instrument side)? If those two wires is to be extended, you'll have to make sure that the total resistance do not increase to much, as this will create an additional error and the indicator will give to low reading when temp is high. The standard cable (thermocouple) Westach are using is 2.4 Ohm. This total value is not to be altered as this will ruin the system accuracy. There is several solutions to this, the first and simplest is to use another probe option with extended leads. There's two more methods, "the preferred" Chromel/Alumel connection method -and a simple extension using "the preferred" connection. Then to the link, Westach is here: http://www.westach.com/ On the left side under INFORMATION, select Hardcopy Catalog then roll down and select page 53; Then you'll see (the original picture)"THE PRINCIPLE OF A THERMOCOUPLE" So if you got one of those indicators, you'll find all the information needed here for all of their instruments -also connection sheets etc. The important thing is the resistance in the "added wires" -and that the two spliced wires is in the same "temperature environment" that you can measure all the time! Remember, the temperature here (at the cold junction point) decide your corrected reading -your true EGT temp. Later on I'll make a few drawings how we use to connect the cold junction by using the "preferred method". Maybe also a little about how we can manipulate the system and still have a correct reading. Torgeir. wrote: > > Torgeir, > > I have understood, as you say, that the the EGT probe is measuring a > differential temperature between the probe and the end of the metal > shielded lead. My lead does not terminate in the cockpit, although > there is sufficient length to do so. The leads on the Lancair IV I am > helping with are too short to enter the cockpit We coiled the leads aft > of the first two cylinders so the leads terminate in the same relative > location, but they are in the engine compartment. These airplanes are > built to fly in the flight levels so positioning the terminals above the > baffling would give the reference temps a great fluctuation. They are > positioned below the baffles of necessity due to their length. > > Your thoughts. > > Lowell > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torgeir Mortensen" > > To: > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:55 PM > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question > > >> >> >> Hi Luis, (not sure about your name) >> >> Funny this thing, as I thought I'll write some- about the EGT system >> before the New Year. Hmmm... >> >> The thing is that, the EGT system is measuring differential >> temperature. Ok., the system that is used for measuring the exhaust gas >> temperature is measuring temperature difference, NOT absolute >> temperature!! >> >> Well, it is measuring the temperature difference between the >> cockpit(inside cockpit temperature -NOT the OAT!) and the EGT probe >> temperature. >> > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Michel Verheughe <michel(at)online.no>
Subject: Re: Skis for Kitfox's
Date: Dec 29, 2006
On Dec 29, 2006, at 1:36 AM, Lynn Matteson wrote: > I was actually referring to your friend...Paul?...who welded your skis. Yes, here is the story, Lynn. I got some good photos of wheel penetrating skis from a Norwegian Avid pilot. With the photos in the background, I went to make a technical drawing, at scale (scaling on the tyre diameter) of what I felt was a good reproduction of the Avid Flyer's skis. Then I asked my friend Paul, who has been a welder for 40 years, to make them for me, from the drawings and the photos. But first, I took him for a flight, we looked at the gear construction, the axis, etc. Then he made them. I even trusted them enough to go flying with me after the first trial that I have published on my web page. Incidentally, he is also the guy who welded my Jabiru engine mount. Those who have seen it say that it is a beautiful welding job. Should I hit a rock under the snow, I don't know what will give up first. But, from taking the plane in and out of the hangar, it becomes evident to me that a side force on one end of the ski will give a big twisting moment and will probably damage the entire gear. So, my wish is that it would only bend the ski and not the gear. Does that make sense? Cheers, Michel ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Michel Verheughe <michel(at)online.no>
Subject: Tyre drag. WAS: Fox Tires only $2.50?
Date: Dec 29, 2006
On Dec 29, 2006, at 4:15 PM, Lowell Fitt wrote: > That is a good question. I don't actually know as I didn't pay that > much attention. My guess, though less than 3 mph. I would be > interested in your experience. I think your guess is quite correct, Lowell. A few years ago, I read in a Norwegian aviation magazine that a EuroCub MkI (taildragger similar to the Kitfox) pilot changed his 8" wide tyres for 6" wide and got no more than a couple of knots faster. Cheers, Michel ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question
From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor(at)online.no>
Hi Lynn, Yes, you're right by now you've probably been reading my post to Lowell about this. Funny that you mention the EIS, I'm a little curious about this system, cause such a modern design should have an automatic cold junction compensation system built in, I.E. the system measure the actual instrument temperature and then correct the reading so you'll always be reading the true EGT (well, -the temp at the probe). If you are using this system, it could be interesting to know their cold junction reference. Yes, the principle is just the same, except that they're using an amplifier and an analog to digital converter -vola.. Torgeir > > Lowell- > > I think what Torgeir said was that the EGT reading is a differential > between the probe and the cockpit temp. My understanding of my EIS is > that it references the unit temperature...that is, the temp of the EIS > "unit" itself, and any other temp that you are monitoring. If Torgeir > was not talking about the EIS unit, this comment may not apply. > > Lynn > On Dec 29, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Lowell Fitt wrote: > >> >> Torgeir, >> >> I have understood, as you say, that the the EGT probe is measuring a >> differential temperature between the probe and the end of the metal >> shielded lead. My lead does not terminate in the cockpit, although >> there is sufficient length to do so. The leads on the Lancair IV I am >> helping with are too short to enter the cockpit We coiled the leads >> aft of the first two cylinders so the leads terminate in the same >> relative location, but they are in the engine compartment. These >> airplanes are built to fly in the flight levels so positioning the >> terminals above the baffling would give the reference temps a great >> fluctuation. They are positioned below the baffles of necessity due to >> their length. >> >> Your thoughts. >> >> Lowell >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torgeir Mortensen" >> >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:55 PM >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question >> >> >>> >>> >>> Hi Luis, (not sure about your name) >>> >>> Funny this thing, as I thought I'll write some- about the EGT system >>> before the New Year. Hmmm... >>> >>> The thing is that, the EGT system is measuring differential >>> temperature. Ok., the system that is used for measuring the exhaust >>> gas temperature is measuring temperature difference, NOT absolute >>> temperature!! >>> >>> Well, it is measuring the temperature difference between the >>> cockpit(inside cockpit temperature -NOT the OAT!) and the EGT probe >>> temperature. >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: wing tank model 2-3
Date: Dec 29, 2006
Dave, Sounds like a doable idea. I have an aluminum header tank a bit larger than the original supplied in the kit. It is mounted aft of the baggage sack and does affect CG more than if mounted directly behind the seat as the newer header tanks are. It seems to me that it would be much easier to put fuel there for extended range than in the wing which would require some serious fabric work. It seems to me that it could work as an enlarged header tank. Lowell N96KL ----- Original Message ----- From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 7:47 AM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 > > Lowell, > What do you think of a tank that could be mounted behind the seat ? > Custon made of course but you could get I would guess 5 to 10 gal capacity > there. > I have taken may times 3 of the 2 imp container there. so an extra 30 > litres or so. > My Baggage sack is tie wrapped in with eyelets in the canvas not > velcro-ed like some. > I have thought of making a new baggage compartment that is solid with a > side door and might do this winter. > > My floats are handy for extra fuel cans as well. > > > Dave > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net> > To: > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:33 AM > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 > > >> >> Noel, >> >> In the early days of small instrument panel and panel tank kitfoxes, the >> wing tanks were available options. The tanks were in two sizes as you >> mention. My guess is that with the light weights of the early airplanes, >> it was considered wise to put the large tank on the mostly empty >> passenger seat side and the small tank on the pilot side for lateral >> ballance. >> >> Lowell >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:18 PM >> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 >> >> >>> >>> John: >>> >>> My plane has a 6 Gal U.S. tank on the left side and a 13.5 Gal. U.S. on >>> the >>> right. I was wondering if you can think of a good reason for this >>> configuration.... >>> >>> Noel >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com >>>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of >>>> john perry >>>> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:08 PM >>>> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com >>>> Subject: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am looking for a wingtank for the Model 2 -3 , 13.5 >>>> gallon needs to >>>> be a left tank . >>>> >>>> Wahoo supposed to snow this weekend will be fun on skis for >>>> some of us . >>>> >>>> John Perry >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Malcolmbru(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 29, 2006
Subject: how do I
how do I cansey a subcription to the list? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: how do I
Date: Dec 29, 2006
You can go to the list site with your browser and on the opening page near the top there is a link I think it says "Edit Membership". That will take you to a page where you choose the E-Mail address etc. Close to the bottom of that page on the right hand side there is a link that says, "Leave Group". Click it Let me know when you are ready to fly! Good luck! Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Malcolmbru(at)aol.com Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 8:35 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: how do I how do I cansey a subcription to the list? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ron schick" <roncarolnikko(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: wing tank model 2-3
Date: Dec 29, 2006
The weights and balance might be a challenge, but I saw a rear mounted tank at Arlington this year. I'll try to attach a picture or three. Ron NB Ore >From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com> >Reply-To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:47:06 -0500 > > >Lowell, >What do you think of a tank that could be mounted behind the seat ? >Custon made of course but you could get I would guess 5 to 10 gal capacity >there. >I have taken may times 3 of the 2 imp container there. so an extra 30 >litres or so. >My Baggage sack is tie wrapped in with eyelets in the canvas not velcro-ed >like some. >I have thought of making a new baggage compartment that is solid with a >side door and might do this winter. > >My floats are handy for extra fuel cans as well. > > >Dave > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net> >To: >Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:33 AM >Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 > > >> >>Noel, >> >>In the early days of small instrument panel and panel tank kitfoxes, the >>wing tanks were available options. The tanks were in two sizes as you >>mention. My guess is that with the light weights of the early airplanes, >>it was considered wise to put the large tank on the mostly empty passenger >>seat side and the small tank on the pilot side for lateral ballance. >> >>Lowell >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> >>To: >>Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:18 PM >>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 >> >> >>> >>>John: >>> >>>My plane has a 6 Gal U.S. tank on the left side and a 13.5 Gal. U.S. on >>>the >>>right. I was wondering if you can think of a good reason for this >>>configuration.... >>> >>>Noel >>> >>> >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com >>>>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of >>>>john perry >>>>Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:08 PM >>>>To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com >>>>Subject: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>I am looking for a wingtank for the Model 2 -3 , 13.5 >>>>gallon needs to >>>>be a left tank . >>>> >>>>Wahoo supposed to snow this weekend will be fun on skis for >>>>some of us . >>>> >>>>John Perry >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > _________________________________________________________________ Find sales, coupons, and free shipping, all in one place! MSN Shopping Sales & Deals http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctid=198,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata 0639 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>
Subject: Re: Skis for Kitfox's
Date: Dec 29, 2006
Makes sense to me, Michel...kinda like a fuse for the landing gear. I've got the Grove gear on mine, which is supposed to be a bit stronger than the tube gear, so I'm not sure whether this will give under the same circumstances as the tube gear or not. Incidentally, I drove a couple hundred miles south into Ohio today, and bought a tube notcher and a tube bending kit. When I got home, my Spruce order was on the porch, which included my 4130 tubing and gas welding rod....I'm starting my skis tomorrow...YEEEEHAWWWW! Ok, Lynn, calm down....I'm gonna practice with both the MIG welder and the gas, to determine which I like best. I got some advice from a welding instructor at Sun 'n' Fun last year on which gas and type of wire to use with the MIG, and lo and behold, that's exactly what I had on hand at home. I bought the gas rod that Spruce claims is the best for 4130....if you can believe them, so I've got some choices to play with. Lynn On Dec 29, 2006, at 2:41 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote: > > On Dec 29, 2006, at 1:36 AM, Lynn Matteson wrote: >> I was actually referring to your friend...Paul?...who welded your >> skis. > > Yes, here is the story, Lynn. I got some good photos of wheel > penetrating skis from a Norwegian Avid pilot. With the photos in > the background, I went to make a technical drawing, at scale > (scaling on the tyre diameter) of what I felt was a good > reproduction of the Avid Flyer's skis. Then I asked my friend Paul, > who has been a welder for 40 years, to make them for me, from the > drawings and the photos. But first, I took him for a flight, we > looked at the gear construction, the axis, etc. Then he made them. > I even trusted them enough to go flying with me after the first > trial that I have published on my web page. Incidentally, he is > also the guy who welded my Jabiru engine mount. Those who have seen > it say that it is a beautiful welding job. > Should I hit a rock under the snow, I don't know what will give up > first. But, from taking the plane in and out of the hangar, it > becomes evident to me that a side force on one end of the ski will > give a big twisting moment and will probably damage the entire > gear. So, my wish is that it would only bend the ski and not the > gear. Does that make sense? > > Cheers, > Michel > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>
Subject: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question
Date: Dec 29, 2006
I just looked for my manual for the EIS, but it's at the hangar. I know they mention the cold junction, and say that it should be kept as far from heat sources as possible, so they must be worried that this junction will get hot and foul up the reading. But elsewhere I recall reading that the unit temperature is what is used to compare all other temp readings to, so I'm at a loss to say anything, really...and I'm certainly no electronics person. Lynn On Dec 29, 2006, at 3:22 PM, Torgeir Mortensen wrote: > > > Hi Lynn, > > Yes, you're right by now you've probably been reading my post to > Lowell about this. > > Funny that you mention the EIS, I'm a little curious about this > system, cause such a modern design should have an automatic cold > junction compensation system built in, I.E. the system measure the > actual instrument temperature and then correct the reading so > you'll always be reading the true EGT (well, -the temp at the probe). > > If you are using this system, it could be interesting to know their > cold junction reference. > > Yes, the principle is just the same, except that they're using an > amplifier and an analog to digital converter -vola.. > > Torgeir > > > wrote: > >> >> Lowell- >> >> I think what Torgeir said was that the EGT reading is a >> differential between the probe and the cockpit temp. My >> understanding of my EIS is that it references the unit >> temperature...that is, the temp of the EIS "unit" itself, and any >> other temp that you are monitoring. If Torgeir was not talking >> about the EIS unit, this comment may not apply. >> >> Lynn >> On Dec 29, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Lowell Fitt wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Torgeir, >>> >>> I have understood, as you say, that the the EGT probe is >>> measuring a differential temperature between the probe and the >>> end of the metal shielded lead. My lead does not terminate in >>> the cockpit, although there is sufficient length to do so. The >>> leads on the Lancair IV I am helping with are too short to enter >>> the cockpit We coiled the leads aft of the first two cylinders >>> so the leads terminate in the same relative location, but they >>> are in the engine compartment. These airplanes are built to fly >>> in the flight levels so positioning the terminals above the >>> baffling would give the reference temps a great fluctuation. >>> They are positioned below the baffles of necessity due to their >>> length. >>> >>> Your thoughts. >>> >>> Lowell >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torgeir Mortensen" >>> >>> To: >>> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:55 PM >>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Luis, (not sure about your name) >>>> >>>> Funny this thing, as I thought I'll write some- about the EGT >>>> system before the New Year. Hmmm... >>>> >>>> The thing is that, the EGT system is measuring differential >>>> temperature. Ok., the system that is used for measuring the >>>> exhaust gas temperature is measuring temperature difference, NOT >>>> absolute temperature!! >>>> >>>> Well, it is measuring the temperature difference between the >>>> cockpit(inside cockpit temperature -NOT the OAT!) and the EGT >>>> probe temperature. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
Subject: Re: Skis for Kitfox's
Date: Dec 29, 2006
<<....I'm gonna practice with both the MIG welder and the gas, to determine which I like best>> I will take oxy/acetylene over Mig even though our Kitfoxes are Mig welded. 035 wall is thin and best to do some joints like t joints and try to break them apart. See where weld or tube breaks. Also you can drill the weld -- if it too hard it will be hard to drill and most likely be brittle. you can normalize joints with a torch and with MIG your joints can cool too fast. Hope that helps . Dave PS get some pics for us on these wheel skis in the making . ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt(at)jps.net> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 9:18 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > Makes sense to me, Michel...kinda like a fuse for the landing gear. I've > got the Grove gear on mine, which is supposed to be a bit stronger than > the tube gear, so I'm not sure whether this will give under the same > circumstances as the tube gear or not. > > Incidentally, I drove a couple hundred miles south into Ohio today, and > bought a tube notcher and a tube bending kit. When I got home, my Spruce > order was on the porch, which included my 4130 tubing and gas welding > rod....I'm starting my skis tomorrow...YEEEEHAWWWW! > Ok, Lynn, calm down....I'm gonna practice with both the MIG welder and > the gas, to determine which I like best. I got some advice from a welding > instructor at Sun 'n' Fun last year on which gas and type of wire to use > with the MIG, and lo and behold, that's exactly what I had on hand at > home. I bought the gas rod that Spruce claims is the best for 4130....if > you can believe them, so I've got some choices to play with. > > Lynn > On Dec 29, 2006, at 2:41 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote: > >> >> On Dec 29, 2006, at 1:36 AM, Lynn Matteson wrote: >>> I was actually referring to your friend...Paul?...who welded your skis. >> >> Yes, here is the story, Lynn. I got some good photos of wheel >> penetrating skis from a Norwegian Avid pilot. With the photos in the >> background, I went to make a technical drawing, at scale (scaling on the >> tyre diameter) of what I felt was a good reproduction of the Avid >> Flyer's skis. Then I asked my friend Paul, who has been a welder for 40 >> years, to make them for me, from the drawings and the photos. But first, >> I took him for a flight, we looked at the gear construction, the axis, >> etc. Then he made them. >> I even trusted them enough to go flying with me after the first trial >> that I have published on my web page. Incidentally, he is also the guy >> who welded my Jabiru engine mount. Those who have seen it say that it is >> a beautiful welding job. >> Should I hit a rock under the snow, I don't know what will give up >> first. But, from taking the plane in and out of the hangar, it becomes >> evident to me that a side force on one end of the ski will give a big >> twisting moment and will probably damage the entire gear. So, my wish is >> that it would only bend the ski and not the gear. Does that make sense? >> >> Cheers, >> Michel >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Fuel Flw
From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor(at)online.no>
Hi Howard, this is an interesting situation, I've been thinking a little about this one. I'll say this is the first issue after the mandatory main tank "fuel shutoff valve" removal. Well, the removal of these two valves was a big mistake that Skystar did, IMO. Do you have those installed?? There is three good reasons (at last) to keep this valves installed. Lets first talk about your "possible" problem. By some reason the pressure is higher in the right tank vs. the left side. This explain the fuel transfere, it also explain your engine stoppage, well how. I'm assuming that you have the feeder went line connected to the left hand main tank, right? As we assume that the head pressure is lower in left tank, the transfere take place -and fuel will be transferred by both the left feeder line and the vent line. As the feeder is "pressurized" fuel transfere will use both lines, that's why this go so fast. As the left tank go dry, air start entering the feeder, the remaining fuel is trapped in the left tank by the air pressure, the engine is using the remaining fuel thats below both feeding lines inside the feeder. Soon your engine loose power. Ok., it's right that some fuel will leak into the feeder from the left tank due to gravity, when feeder fuel level go below the feeder pipe outlet. However, this leakage will be far to low for your engine demand. Then to the cause of the low pressure in the left tank, the traditional is an old leaky gasket at the main filler, but your plane is not that old so.. Next, could it be a leaky head tube? Or could it be a leaky left fuel tank at some high spot? All of these three is hard to spot/verify without a tank shut off valve. So number one reason for having main fuel tank shut off valves, is to avoid unwanted fuel tranfere and loss of endurance. In your case fuel would still be able to tranfere even if you had the shut off valve installed. This time via the vent line. I've many times talked about a cross vent line, such arrangement would prevent transfere, but will lower the total head pressure if one of the tank is leaking. Number two is a safety issue, well both tank outlet enter cockpit via a rubber housing - if one of those rubber housing start leaking, to stop such a leakage you'll need to shut both tank valves, but you'll still have the header for landing.. Number three. When I'm parking, even for long term, one of the main is open the other is closed. For maintenance this valve is a must. OK. The last thing you've mentioned, is the lack of transfere from left to right via the feeder when on ground. This is hard to explain, unless you have a rubber flap valve somewhere(one way valve), mentioned in one of the old the Rotax Service Information Letter, that prevent fuel to go toward the right tank. Well lets see what happen now.. There is still something to ask, how much fuel was left in the left tank? Was the fuel level above the venline tube where it is entering the left tank? Good Luck Torgeir. > My Model IV 1200, has been feeding fuel from the right tank with gas in > the left also. I finally deceided to run to see if the gas would > transfer. Luckly for me, it stopped on final at our airport. The left > tank had gas in it. It would not start, we added gas to the right tank, > and after a few minutes on choke, it started. > > Question...what would cause the tanks not to flow evenly. We had check > the lines, and they all flowed. I would think the tanks would level up > when sitting on the ground, but they do not seem to cross flow. > > Suggestions please. > > Howard -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols(at)scrtc.com>
Subject: Re: Skis for Kitfox's
Date: Dec 29, 2006
I've recently completed some repair on the 4130 framework of a Rans S14 I own (in addition to my Kitfox). I had tried without success to get a local professional to do it with a TIG welder which is apparently the preferred method nowadays. After it became apparent that I was on my own, I purchased a couple of books on welding and accessed all the information I could find on the internet. From what I could gather, 4130 should be welded either with TIG or with oxy-acetylene. Why not MIG? I never figured that out, but that seemed to be the consensus. Not owning a TIG welder, and not interested in spending over $1000 to purchase one, I resorted to my old oxy-acetylene welder. The info I had recommended using Oxweld 32 rods which are available from Aircraft Spruce. (They also sell a package of 4130 scraps which are helpful in practicing your technique.) My technique in adjusting the flame (something I came across on another website) was to set the acetylene pressure at 2 psi, light the gas, and then screw in the oxygen regulator just enough to get the proper flame from the torch. My O2 regulator is not calibrated for very low pressure, and it didn't show any at all when turned on in this manner, but this is what you want when welding .035" material. This gives you a setup similar to the $370 Henron torch you may have seen demonstrated at Sun-N-Fun or Oshkosh. Also you'll want to use either a #0 or #1 tip on your torch to avoid burn-through. My sources recommended not welding with TIG unless the temperature was 70 degrees or above, and also recommended preheating before welding which is obviously done with the gas unit. It was also recommended to withdraw the torch slowly, which amounts to a bit of heat-treating. To any professional or advanced amateurs on the list what I have just written may sound like a bunch of nonsense, but it worked for me. FWIW Clem Nichols ----- Original Message ----- From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 8:51 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > <<....I'm gonna practice with both the MIG welder > and the gas, to determine which I like best>> > > I will take oxy/acetylene over Mig even though our Kitfoxes are Mig > welded. > 035 wall is thin and best to do some joints like t joints and try to break > them apart. > See where weld or tube breaks. Also you can drill the weld -- if it too > hard it will be hard to drill and most likely be brittle. you can > normalize joints with a torch and with MIG your joints can cool too fast. > > > Hope that helps . > > > Dave > > > PS get some pics for us on these wheel skis in the making . > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt(at)jps.net> > To: > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 9:18 PM > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > >> >> Makes sense to me, Michel...kinda like a fuse for the landing gear. I've >> got the Grove gear on mine, which is supposed to be a bit stronger than >> the tube gear, so I'm not sure whether this will give under the same >> circumstances as the tube gear or not. >> >> Incidentally, I drove a couple hundred miles south into Ohio today, and >> bought a tube notcher and a tube bending kit. When I got home, my Spruce >> order was on the porch, which included my 4130 tubing and gas welding >> rod....I'm starting my skis tomorrow...YEEEEHAWWWW! >> Ok, Lynn, calm down....I'm gonna practice with both the MIG welder and >> the gas, to determine which I like best. I got some advice from a >> welding instructor at Sun 'n' Fun last year on which gas and type of >> wire to use with the MIG, and lo and behold, that's exactly what I had >> on hand at home. I bought the gas rod that Spruce claims is the best for >> 4130....if you can believe them, so I've got some choices to play with. >> >> Lynn >> On Dec 29, 2006, at 2:41 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote: >> >>> >>> On Dec 29, 2006, at 1:36 AM, Lynn Matteson wrote: >>>> I was actually referring to your friend...Paul?...who welded your >>>> skis. >>> >>> Yes, here is the story, Lynn. I got some good photos of wheel >>> penetrating skis from a Norwegian Avid pilot. With the photos in the >>> background, I went to make a technical drawing, at scale (scaling on >>> the tyre diameter) of what I felt was a good reproduction of the Avid >>> Flyer's skis. Then I asked my friend Paul, who has been a welder for 40 >>> years, to make them for me, from the drawings and the photos. But >>> first, I took him for a flight, we looked at the gear construction, the >>> axis, etc. Then he made them. >>> I even trusted them enough to go flying with me after the first trial >>> that I have published on my web page. Incidentally, he is also the guy >>> who welded my Jabiru engine mount. Those who have seen it say that it >>> is a beautiful welding job. >>> Should I hit a rock under the snow, I don't know what will give up >>> first. But, from taking the plane in and out of the hangar, it becomes >>> evident to me that a side force on one end of the ski will give a big >>> twisting moment and will probably damage the entire gear. So, my wish >>> is that it would only bend the ski and not the gear. Does that make >>> sense? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Michel >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>
Subject: Re: Skis for Kitfox's
Date: Dec 29, 2006
I've got a bunch of experience gas welding on building exhaust headers back in my racing days, so that should help with the thin stock, but certainly not with the 4130. Yes, I've been told that the gas is best over the MIG, like you said, Dave. Pics will be done, including self-portraits while the flame is going...big show-off! I once had an assignment for photo class that required shooting under 4 different light sources/color temperatures of light. One that I used was gas welding...it was a really cool picture that showed a spark shooting straight up, then jutting off at an angle, then bursting like a roman candle...time exposure of course. I had to really set the torch hot and burn the metal to do that, and any real weldor would have caught the wrong welding technique, but the effect was dramatic. Lynn On Dec 29, 2006, at 9:51 PM, dave wrote: > > <<....I'm gonna practice with both the MIG welder > and the gas, to determine which I like best>> > > I will take oxy/acetylene over Mig even though our Kitfoxes are > Mig welded. > 035 wall is thin and best to do some joints like t joints and try > to break them apart. > See where weld or tube breaks. Also you can drill the weld -- if > it too hard it will be hard to drill and most likely be brittle. > you can normalize joints with a torch and with MIG your joints can > cool too fast. > > > Hope that helps . > > > Dave > > > PS get some pics for us on these wheel skis in the making . > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt(at)jps.net> > To: > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 9:18 PM > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > >> >> Makes sense to me, Michel...kinda like a fuse for the landing >> gear. I've got the Grove gear on mine, which is supposed to be a >> bit stronger than the tube gear, so I'm not sure whether this >> will give under the same circumstances as the tube gear or not. >> >> Incidentally, I drove a couple hundred miles south into Ohio >> today, and bought a tube notcher and a tube bending kit. When I >> got home, my Spruce order was on the porch, which included my >> 4130 tubing and gas welding rod....I'm starting my skis >> tomorrow...YEEEEHAWWWW! >> Ok, Lynn, calm down....I'm gonna practice with both the MIG >> welder and the gas, to determine which I like best. I got some >> advice from a welding instructor at Sun 'n' Fun last year on >> which gas and type of wire to use with the MIG, and lo and >> behold, that's exactly what I had on hand at home. I bought the >> gas rod that Spruce claims is the best for 4130....if you can >> believe them, so I've got some choices to play with. >> >> Lynn >> On Dec 29, 2006, at 2:41 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Dec 29, 2006, at 1:36 AM, Lynn Matteson wrote: >>>> I was actually referring to your friend...Paul?...who welded >>>> your skis. >>> >>> Yes, here is the story, Lynn. I got some good photos of wheel >>> penetrating skis from a Norwegian Avid pilot. With the photos in >>> the background, I went to make a technical drawing, at scale >>> (scaling on the tyre diameter) of what I felt was a good >>> reproduction of the Avid Flyer's skis. Then I asked my friend >>> Paul, who has been a welder for 40 years, to make them for me, >>> from the drawings and the photos. But first, I took him for a >>> flight, we looked at the gear construction, the axis, etc. Then >>> he made them. >>> I even trusted them enough to go flying with me after the first >>> trial that I have published on my web page. Incidentally, he is >>> also the guy who welded my Jabiru engine mount. Those who have >>> seen it say that it is a beautiful welding job. >>> Should I hit a rock under the snow, I don't know what will give >>> up first. But, from taking the plane in and out of the hangar, >>> it becomes evident to me that a side force on one end of the ski >>> will give a big twisting moment and will probably damage the >>> entire gear. So, my wish is that it would only bend the ski and >>> not the gear. Does that make sense? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Michel >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rotax 912-S flyers, What RPM do you look for on Climbout
?
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 29, 2006
I have been reading the Rotax manual and it says the RPM limit is 5500 - 5800 for only one minute, and continuous below 5500 RPM. Are you guys proping your planes to takeoff and maximum rate of climb speed below 5500 RPM at full throttle ? Or are you seeing higher RPM's than that and pulling the power back in the climb ? Thanks, Mike -------- "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84411#84411 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com>
Subject: Re: wing tank model 2-3
Date: Dec 30, 2006
Ron, Thanks for those pics of the rear tank. Looks like a fair size. I have a dash tank and 2 6 gal tanks in wings. When on floats I am restricted to about 3.5 hours and a bit. I can take gas in floats but an extra 5 to 10 gals behind seat would extend me 1 to 2 hours . So i can fly in 3 hours and still have enough for return without refueling. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "ron schick" <roncarolnikko(at)hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 8:23 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 The weights and balance might be a challenge, but I saw a rear mounted tank at Arlington this year. I'll try to attach a picture or three. Ron NB Ore >From: "dave" <dave(at)cfisher.com> >Reply-To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:47:06 -0500 > > >Lowell, >What do you think of a tank that could be mounted behind the seat ? >Custon made of course but you could get I would guess 5 to 10 gal capacity >there. >I have taken may times 3 of the 2 imp container there. so an extra 30 >litres or so. >My Baggage sack is tie wrapped in with eyelets in the canvas not velcro-ed >like some. >I have thought of making a new baggage compartment that is solid with a >side door and might do this winter. > >My floats are handy for extra fuel cans as well. > > >Dave > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net> >To: >Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:33 AM >Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 > > >> >>Noel, >> >>In the early days of small instrument panel and panel tank kitfoxes, the >>wing tanks were available options. The tanks were in two sizes as you >>mention. My guess is that with the light weights of the early airplanes, >>it was considered wise to put the large tank on the mostly empty passenger >>seat side and the small tank on the pilot side for lateral ballance. >> >>Lowell >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> >>To: >>Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:18 PM >>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 >> >> >>> >>>John: >>> >>>My plane has a 6 Gal U.S. tank on the left side and a 13.5 Gal. U.S. on >>>the >>>right. I was wondering if you can think of a good reason for this >>>configuration.... >>> >>>Noel >>> >>> >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com >>>>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of >>>>john perry >>>>Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:08 PM >>>>To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com >>>>Subject: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>I am looking for a wingtank for the Model 2 -3 , 13.5 >>>>gallon needs to >>>>be a left tank . >>>> >>>>Wahoo supposed to snow this weekend will be fun on skis for >>>>some of us . >>>> >>>>John Perry >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > _________________________________________________________________ Find sales, coupons, and free shipping, all in one place! MSN Shopping Sales & Deals http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctid=198,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata 0639 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Possible overheating and EGT question
Date: Dec 30, 2006
Enough to say Lynn your EIS is probably a darn sight more accurate than my EGT. As long as you didn't cut any wires or use speaker zip wire in your installation. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > Lynn Matteson > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:57 PM > To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question > > > > I just looked for my manual for the EIS, but it's at the hangar. I > know they mention the cold junction, and say that it should be kept > as far from heat sources as possible, so they must be worried that > this junction will get hot and foul up the reading. But elsewhere I > recall reading that the unit temperature is what is used to compare > all other temp readings to, so I'm at a loss to say anything, > really...and I'm certainly no electronics person. > > Lynn > On Dec 29, 2006, at 3:22 PM, Torgeir Mortensen wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Lynn, > > > > Yes, you're right by now you've probably been reading my post to > > Lowell about this. > > > > Funny that you mention the EIS, I'm a little curious about this > > system, cause such a modern design should have an automatic cold > > junction compensation system built in, I.E. the system measure the > > actual instrument temperature and then correct the reading so > > you'll always be reading the true EGT (well, -the temp at > the probe). > > > > If you are using this system, it could be interesting to > know their > > cold junction reference. > > > > Yes, the principle is just the same, except that they're using an > > amplifier and an analog to digital converter -vola.. > > > > Torgeir > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > >> Lowell- > >> > >> I think what Torgeir said was that the EGT reading is a > >> differential between the probe and the cockpit temp. My > >> understanding of my EIS is that it references the unit > >> temperature...that is, the temp of the EIS "unit" itself, and any > >> other temp that you are monitoring. If Torgeir was not talking > >> about the EIS unit, this comment may not apply. > >> > >> Lynn > >> On Dec 29, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Lowell Fitt wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Torgeir, > >>> > >>> I have understood, as you say, that the the EGT probe is > >>> measuring a differential temperature between the probe and the > >>> end of the metal shielded lead. My lead does not terminate in > >>> the cockpit, although there is sufficient length to do so. The > >>> leads on the Lancair IV I am helping with are too short to enter > >>> the cockpit We coiled the leads aft of the first two cylinders > >>> so the leads terminate in the same relative location, but they > >>> are in the engine compartment. These airplanes are built to fly > >>> in the flight levels so positioning the terminals above the > >>> baffling would give the reference temps a great fluctuation. > >>> They are positioned below the baffles of necessity due to their > >>> length. > >>> > >>> Your thoughts. > >>> > >>> Lowell > >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torgeir Mortensen" > >>> > >>> To: > >>> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:55 PM > >>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi Luis, (not sure about your name) > >>>> > >>>> Funny this thing, as I thought I'll write some- about the EGT > >>>> system before the New Year. Hmmm... > >>>> > >>>> The thing is that, the EGT system is measuring differential > >>>> temperature. Ok., the system that is used for measuring the > >>>> exhaust gas temperature is measuring temperature > difference, NOT > >>>> absolute temperature!! > >>>> > >>>> Well, it is measuring the temperature difference between the > >>>> cockpit(inside cockpit temperature -NOT the OAT!) and the EGT > >>>> probe temperature. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: > http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Fuel Flw
Date: Dec 30, 2006
Torgeir: I followed your post with some interest. I do have a question... How do you calculate the right tank to have a higher head of fuel than the right tank? They are both at the same distance over the header tank. My plane has forward facing vent tubes (on the caps) on both tanks. The only way I can see a difference in the head of fuel from each tank is when both tanks are at different pressures because of differences in the cap vents. There may be a little difference in the level of the plane in flight as the rounded cowl distorts to some extent a persons ability to tell straight and level. In a case like that the upper tank will empty first. As to having separate shut offs on each wing tank I heartily agree with you. I check the rubber tube connections on the fuel system quite often because I don't want a gas shower at 3000' ! Shutting off one tank will also allow you to get a good top off for max fuel in both tanks. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > Torgeir Mortensen > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 11:27 PM > To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flw > > > > > Hi Howard, > > this is an interesting situation, I've been thinking a little > about this > one. I'll say this is the first issue after the mandatory > main tank "fuel > shutoff valve" removal. > > Well, the removal of these two valves was a big mistake that > Skystar did, > IMO. Do you have those installed?? > > There is three good reasons (at last) to keep this valves installed. > > Lets first talk about your "possible" problem. > > By some reason the pressure is higher in the right tank vs. > the left side. > This explain the fuel transfere, it also explain your engine > stoppage, > well how. > > I'm assuming that you have the feeder went line connected to > the left hand > main tank, right? > > As we assume that the head pressure is lower in left tank, > the transfere > take place -and fuel will be transferred by both the left > feeder line and > the vent line. As the feeder is "pressurized" fuel transfere > will use both > lines, that's why this go so fast. > > As the left tank go dry, air start entering the feeder, the > remaining fuel > is trapped in the left tank by the air pressure, the engine > is using the > remaining fuel that's below both feeding lines inside the > feeder. Soon > your engine loose power. > > Ok., it's right that some fuel will leak into the feeder from > the left > tank due to gravity, when feeder fuel level go below the feeder pipe > outlet. However, this leakage will be far to low for your > engine demand. > > > Then to the cause of the low pressure in the left tank, the > traditional is > an old leaky gasket at the main filler, but your plane is not > that old so.. > > Next, could it be a leaky head tube? Or could it be a leaky > left fuel tank > at some high spot? All of these three is hard to spot/verify > without a > tank shut off valve. > > > So number one reason for having main fuel tank shut off > valves, is to > avoid unwanted fuel tranfere and loss of endurance. > > In your case fuel would still be able to tranfere even if you > had the shut > off valve installed. This time via the vent line. > > I've many times talked about a cross vent line, such > arrangement would > prevent transfere, but will lower the total head pressure if > one of the > tank is leaking. > > > Number two is a safety issue, well both tank outlet enter > cockpit via a > rubber housing - if one of those rubber housing start > leaking, to stop > such a leakage you'll need to shut both tank valves, but > you'll still have > the header for landing.. > > > Number three. When I'm parking, even for long term, one of > the main is > open the other is closed. For maintenance this valve is a must. > > OK. > > The last thing you've mentioned, is the lack of transfere > from left to > right via the feeder when on ground. > > This is hard to explain, unless you have a rubber flap valve > somewhere(one > way valve), mentioned in one of the old the Rotax Service > Information > Letter, that prevent fuel to go toward the right tank. > > > Well lets see what happen now.. > > > There is still something to ask, how much fuel was left in > the left tank? > Was the fuel level above the venline tube where it is > entering the left > tank? > > > > Good Luck > > > Torgeir. > > > > > > > > > My Model IV 1200, has been feeding fuel from the right tank > with gas in > > the left also. I finally deceided to run to see if the gas would > > transfer. Luckly for me, it stopped on final at our > airport. The left > > tank had gas in it. It would not start, we added gas to > the right tank, > > and after a few minutes on choke, it started. > > > > Question...what would cause the tanks not to flow evenly. > We had check > > the lines, and they all flowed. I would think the tanks > would level up > > when sitting on the ground, but they do not seem to cross flow. > > > > Suggestions please. > > > > Howard > > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>
Subject: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question
Date: Dec 30, 2006
Right on Noel, re the speaker wire...not even Monster wire would work here. : ) Actually though, the instructions say that you CAN cut the wires shorter: "NOTE: The length of wire on the EGT & CHT probes, or the extension wire may be shortened as desired for your installation." A personal note on their NOTE....I'm almost certain that I recall speaking to Sandy at Grand Rapids Technologies (EIS) about shortening the wires, and she said that you can shorten the wires coming from the unit...actually the connector... but NOT the probe wires. Torgeir- I just read the manual re the "unit temperature"...to quote: "This function is displayed on the hourmeter page, and shows the internal temperature of the instrument. It is used by the instrument for cold-junction compensation of the EGTs and CHTs. It is also useful for estimating the cabin temperature, as it tends to stabilize at about 30-35 degrees F above the ambient temperature." It goes on to mention that it (the unit temperature) can be used to check for excessive instrument (the EIS itself) heat, but that's not pertinent to this discussion. Lynn On Dec 30, 2006, at 9:00 AM, Noel Loveys wrote: > > Enough to say Lynn your EIS is probably a darn sight more accurate > than my > EGT. As long as you didn't cut any wires or use speaker zip wire > in your > installation. > > Noel > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of >> Lynn Matteson >> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:57 PM >> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question >> >> >> >> I just looked for my manual for the EIS, but it's at the hangar. I >> know they mention the cold junction, and say that it should be kept >> as far from heat sources as possible, so they must be worried that >> this junction will get hot and foul up the reading. But elsewhere I >> recall reading that the unit temperature is what is used to compare >> all other temp readings to, so I'm at a loss to say anything, >> really...and I'm certainly no electronics person. >> >> Lynn >> On Dec 29, 2006, at 3:22 PM, Torgeir Mortensen wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Hi Lynn, >>> >>> Yes, you're right by now you've probably been reading my post to >>> Lowell about this. >>> >>> Funny that you mention the EIS, I'm a little curious about this >>> system, cause such a modern design should have an automatic cold >>> junction compensation system built in, I.E. the system measure the >>> actual instrument temperature and then correct the reading so >>> you'll always be reading the true EGT (well, -the temp at >> the probe). >>> >>> If you are using this system, it could be interesting to >> know their >>> cold junction reference. >>> >>> Yes, the principle is just the same, except that they're using an >>> amplifier and an analog to digital converter -vola.. >>> >>> Torgeir >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Lowell- >>>> >>>> I think what Torgeir said was that the EGT reading is a >>>> differential between the probe and the cockpit temp. My >>>> understanding of my EIS is that it references the unit >>>> temperature...that is, the temp of the EIS "unit" itself, and any >>>> other temp that you are monitoring. If Torgeir was not talking >>>> about the EIS unit, this comment may not apply. >>>> >>>> Lynn >>>> On Dec 29, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Lowell Fitt wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Torgeir, >>>>> >>>>> I have understood, as you say, that the the EGT probe is >>>>> measuring a differential temperature between the probe and the >>>>> end of the metal shielded lead. My lead does not terminate in >>>>> the cockpit, although there is sufficient length to do so. The >>>>> leads on the Lancair IV I am helping with are too short to enter >>>>> the cockpit We coiled the leads aft of the first two cylinders >>>>> so the leads terminate in the same relative location, but they >>>>> are in the engine compartment. These airplanes are built to fly >>>>> in the flight levels so positioning the terminals above the >>>>> baffling would give the reference temps a great fluctuation. >>>>> They are positioned below the baffles of necessity due to their >>>>> length. >>>>> >>>>> Your thoughts. >>>>> >>>>> Lowell >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torgeir Mortensen" >>>>> >>>>> To: >>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:55 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Luis, (not sure about your name) >>>>>> >>>>>> Funny this thing, as I thought I'll write some- about the EGT >>>>>> system before the New Year. Hmmm... >>>>>> >>>>>> The thing is that, the EGT system is measuring differential >>>>>> temperature. Ok., the system that is used for measuring the >>>>>> exhaust gas temperature is measuring temperature >> difference, NOT >>>>>> absolute temperature!! >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, it is measuring the temperature difference between the >>>>>> cockpit(inside cockpit temperature -NOT the OAT!) and the EGT >>>>>> probe temperature. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: >> http://www.opera.com/mail/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Re: dead-stick topic
Date: Dec 30, 2006
When I was training my instructor and myself were out doing forced approaches one day. It was a very cold dry day and we had had a very cold week. All the ponds in the area were frozen over just like skating rinks. For training purposes we used a hard deck of 500'. On one of the approaches I lined up to land on one of the ponds The instructor asked why I didn't line up on the woods road beside the pond. I told him about wing clearance, potholes and the fact on the ice there was plenty of room for a rescue aircraft to land also with the weather we had the ice was no doubt up to carrying our weight. Also many ski-doo tracks went across the ice and showed it to be very strong.... He said OK. I asked him then if he wanted to make the next one a full on landing.... He wasn't interested! I later told him that when flying with my father in his Lake LA4 we regularly landed on ice. For our forced approaches we used Engine to idle, carb heat and 20 Deg. Flap (C172) with 3 sec of full throttle every 500' of decent to keep the CHT up. It was considered very important to do the engine warms. At that time a student and instructor (different flight school) got their wings doing the exact same thing some 200 Mi away. Apparently they had engine problems when going around from a forced approach. The weather in their local was considerably warmer and damper than ours so I suspect what they had was carb icing. After that we were given a hard deck of 1000' AGL for forced approaches. I have seen a film of a fellow in Alaska who flies a Cub stripped down. In order to land he has to shut down his engine as he doesn't have breaks. He also doesn't have a starter. Every landing at his home strip is both dead stick and short on soft field. Hi wife and son fly in and out every day under the same conditions. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rexinator > Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 2:30 AM > To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: dead-stick topic > > > > Michel, > When I was in training it was considered risky to practice > engine out > procedures by doing actual dead stick flight. Most of the training > flights were by flight schools and were done from tower controlled > airports. Possible dead stick practice accidents were enough of a > deterent to the schools considering they might be done by > solo students > if taught by instructors. > I see no problem practicing them if you are allowed by the airport > authorities or have your own airstrip as long as safe procedures.are > followed. I intend to do them myself one day. > > Rex > Snowy Colorado ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 29, 2006
From: Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel Flw
At 07:15 AM 12/29/2006, you wrote: >Question...what would cause the tanks not to flow evenly. We had >check the lines, and they all flowed. I would think the tanks would >level up when sitting on the ground, but they do not seem to cross flow. > >Suggestions please. Howard, We need more information. How much fuel was in your left tank? (%) Do you have a header tank? Better yet, what does your entire fuel system look like, with sizes and locations of tanks and tubes. Guy Buchanan K-IV/1200 w/ 582 C-box & Warp 3 blade ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rotax 912-S flyers, What RPM do you look for on Climbout
?
From: "wingnut" <wingnut(at)spamarrest.com>
Date: Dec 30, 2006
1 min? My operator manual reads 5 min. I pictch my IVO prop for max RPM at takeoff. The actual RPM will vary with weather but I do occationally see 5800. When I do, I throttle back to 5200 about 100ft before pattern altitude, pitch the nowse down a touch and start the cross wind turn. This usually happens around the end of the runway :-). Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84465#84465 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Possible overheating and EGT question
Date: Dec 30, 2006
The probe wires is what I was referring to not being cut. The probes are usually available with several different length harnesses. All of which will have identical internal resistances. As you wrote, your EIS has a second probe built in, physically close to the cold junction that monitors the temp of that junction and automatically makes your compensation corrections for you. That's the best. Except of course if you loose your EIS at which time you will have more worries than an EGT a couple of degrees too high. Some other instruments will have a little bi-metallic spring, similar to what is found in a thermostat, in the meter that will make adjustments for the temperature of the cold junction. Sort of second best. In the event of a power out you won't lose your EGT but the bi-metallic spring can after a time lose its calibration. My EGT doesn't have any compensation built in but the documentation says it is calibrated for 20C (68F) Since my cockpit temps seldom if ever get above 68F the instrument is usable. Even if the cockpit temps went up to 80F the accuracy of reading the meter because of parallax etc is probably close to the 12F the meter will be reading too low. In flight my EGTs show an almost even 1100F my plugs say they are getting good mixture so I can now depend ( to an extent ) on my EGT gauge. I will probably continue to check my plugs every 5-10 hr. I got into a discussion with a gentleman on another group last year about the use of extending probe harness with copper speaker wire. He said the two extra junctions that were created would balance each other out and the instrument would still be accurate. Actually there would be four junctions created as the connectors actually on the instrument are chromel and alumel. He considered a few feet of copper wire to have a resistance of 0 so it wouldn't throw off his EGT. In fact the way he uses his EGTs just to follow temperature trends it probably works for him. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > Lynn Matteson > Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 11:19 AM > To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question > > > > Right on Noel, re the speaker wire...not even Monster wire > would work > here. : ) Actually though, the instructions say that you CAN > cut the > wires shorter: > > "NOTE: The length of wire on the EGT & CHT probes, or the extension > wire may be shortened as desired for your installation." > > A personal note on their NOTE....I'm almost certain that I recall > speaking to Sandy at Grand Rapids Technologies (EIS) about > shortening > the wires, and she said that you can shorten the wires coming from > the unit...actually the connector... but NOT the probe wires. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 30, 2006
From: jerry evans <kitfox555(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: new kitfox2
I'm new to kitfox , Just purchased a kitfox 2 and I was interested in making the rudder and the stab taller to help the yaw ? I'm still in the stage of building before the covering. What is the thoughts has anyone done this? Also is there anyone in North Cal near paradise that I can see there kitfox and ask questions about building? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols(at)scrtc.com>
Subject: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question
Date: Dec 30, 2006
For whatever it's worth, there's an article on page 48 or the January 2007 issue of "Light Sport and Ultralight Flying" which covers this very subject. It's written by Arnold C. Anderson who is now retired after spending " I37 years in the engine and aerospace industry as a mechanical engineer, designing electro-mechanical equipment and solving reliability problems in equipment for unmanned deep space missions". I would think that this issue could probably be purchased by going to www.ultralightflying.com. Clem Nichols ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 9:51 AM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question > > The probe wires is what I was referring to not being cut. The probes are > usually available with several different length harnesses. All of which > will have identical internal resistances. > > As you wrote, your EIS has a second probe built in, physically close to > the > cold junction that monitors the temp of that junction and automatically > makes your compensation corrections for you. That's the best. Except of > course if you loose your EIS at which time you will have more worries than > an EGT a couple of degrees too high. > > Some other instruments will have a little bi-metallic spring, similar to > what is found in a thermostat, in the meter that will make adjustments for > the temperature of the cold junction. Sort of second best. In the event > of > a power out you won't lose your EGT but the bi-metallic spring can after a > time lose its calibration. > > My EGT doesn't have any compensation built in but the documentation says > it > is calibrated for 20C (68F) Since my cockpit temps seldom if ever get > above > 68F the instrument is usable. Even if the cockpit temps went up to 80F > the > accuracy of reading the meter because of parallax etc is probably close to > the 12F the meter will be reading too low. > > In flight my EGTs show an almost even 1100F my plugs say they are getting > good mixture so I can now depend ( to an extent ) on my EGT gauge. I > will > probably continue to check my plugs every 5-10 hr. > > I got into a discussion with a gentleman on another group last year about > the use of extending probe harness with copper speaker wire. He said the > two extra junctions that were created would balance each other out and the > instrument would still be accurate. Actually there would be four > junctions > created as the connectors actually on the instrument are chromel and > alumel. > He considered a few feet of copper wire to have a resistance of 0 so it > wouldn't throw off his EGT. In fact the way he uses his EGTs just to > follow > temperature trends it probably works for him. > > Noel > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of >> Lynn Matteson >> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 11:19 AM >> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question >> >> >> >> Right on Noel, re the speaker wire...not even Monster wire >> would work >> here. : ) Actually though, the instructions say that you CAN >> cut the >> wires shorter: >> >> "NOTE: The length of wire on the EGT & CHT probes, or the extension >> wire may be shortened as desired for your installation." >> >> A personal note on their NOTE....I'm almost certain that I recall >> speaking to Sandy at Grand Rapids Technologies (EIS) about >> shortening >> the wires, and she said that you can shorten the wires coming from >> the unit...actually the connector... but NOT the probe wires. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel Flw
Date: Dec 30, 2006
Noel, I know this was directed to Torgeir, but I have some thoughts on this. Because of the round shape of the top of the instrument panel / cowl, the Kitfox doesn't have the typical flat reference to the horizon that a Cessna has. The forward carry through shoud be flat with the horizon, but is a distance visually from the horizon in our aiprlanes. In the group I fly with we once had a guy streaming fuel from his fuel cap area and a close fly by confirmed he still had his cap on. When he leveled his wings the fuel stream stopped. He was our highest hour pilot, but when on a long X country we tend to settle in and watch the scenery letting the airplane find it's confort zone. This especially if we are un-trimmed i.e., needing a little bit of right rudder when in cruise. When watching Kitfoxes in flight, it is not uncommon to see guys flying with a wing low. I think this is a major part of the uneven fuel flow, as in this configuration, you will have a higher head in the high tank. It is interesting also that the high tank will indicate a higher level of fuel in the sight gauge, giving the impression that the low wing has less fuel in it's tank. For those that have the tank valves, the common response would be to close the valve on the lower tank which would result in full flow from only the higher wing tank which might already have less fuel than the other tank. When rigged properly, the system works and this is where I disagree with Torgeirs comment regarding Skystar's elimination of the tank valves. I know some that still have them, but, and someone else will have to remind me of the exact reason, I believe Skystar eliminated them because of issues that developed after the addition of the header tank vent to the system. As I unserstand it, the early fuel system with the panel tank didn't vent the panel tank independently from the fuel lines from the wing tanks. This latter is from my understanding and am always welcome to comments from those that were closer to the issues mentioned. Lowell N96KL Mod IV-1200 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 6:20 AM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flw > > Torgeir: > > I followed your post with some interest. I do have a question... How do > you > calculate the right tank to have a higher head of fuel than the right > tank? > They are both at the same distance over the header tank. > > My plane has forward facing vent tubes (on the caps) on both tanks. The > only way I can see a difference in the head of fuel from each tank is when > both tanks are at different pressures because of differences in the cap > vents. > > There may be a little difference in the level of the plane in flight as > the > rounded cowl distorts to some extent a persons ability to tell straight > and > level. In a case like that the upper tank will empty first. > > As to having separate shut offs on each wing tank I heartily agree with > you. > I check the rubber tube connections on the fuel system quite often because > I > don't want a gas shower at 3000' ! Shutting off one tank will also allow > you to get a good top off for max fuel in both tanks. > > Noel > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of >> Torgeir Mortensen >> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 11:27 PM >> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flw >> >> >> >> >> Hi Howard, >> >> this is an interesting situation, I've been thinking a little >> about this >> one. I'll say this is the first issue after the mandatory >> main tank "fuel >> shutoff valve" removal. >> >> Well, the removal of these two valves was a big mistake that >> Skystar did, >> IMO. Do you have those installed?? >> >> There is three good reasons (at last) to keep this valves installed. >> >> Lets first talk about your "possible" problem. >> >> By some reason the pressure is higher in the right tank vs. >> the left side. >> This explain the fuel transfere, it also explain your engine >> stoppage, >> well how. >> >> I'm assuming that you have the feeder went line connected to >> the left hand >> main tank, right? >> >> As we assume that the head pressure is lower in left tank, >> the transfere >> take place -and fuel will be transferred by both the left >> feeder line and >> the vent line. As the feeder is "pressurized" fuel transfere >> will use both >> lines, that's why this go so fast. >> >> As the left tank go dry, air start entering the feeder, the >> remaining fuel >> is trapped in the left tank by the air pressure, the engine >> is using the >> remaining fuel that's below both feeding lines inside the >> feeder. Soon >> your engine loose power. >> >> Ok., it's right that some fuel will leak into the feeder from >> the left >> tank due to gravity, when feeder fuel level go below the feeder pipe >> outlet. However, this leakage will be far to low for your >> engine demand. >> >> >> Then to the cause of the low pressure in the left tank, the >> traditional is >> an old leaky gasket at the main filler, but your plane is not >> that old so.. >> >> Next, could it be a leaky head tube? Or could it be a leaky >> left fuel tank >> at some high spot? All of these three is hard to spot/verify >> without a >> tank shut off valve. >> >> >> So number one reason for having main fuel tank shut off >> valves, is to >> avoid unwanted fuel tranfere and loss of endurance. >> >> In your case fuel would still be able to tranfere even if you >> had the shut >> off valve installed. This time via the vent line. >> >> I've many times talked about a cross vent line, such >> arrangement would >> prevent transfere, but will lower the total head pressure if >> one of the >> tank is leaking. >> >> >> Number two is a safety issue, well both tank outlet enter >> cockpit via a >> rubber housing - if one of those rubber housing start >> leaking, to stop >> such a leakage you'll need to shut both tank valves, but >> you'll still have >> the header for landing.. >> >> >> Number three. When I'm parking, even for long term, one of >> the main is >> open the other is closed. For maintenance this valve is a must. >> >> OK. >> >> The last thing you've mentioned, is the lack of transfere >> from left to >> right via the feeder when on ground. >> >> This is hard to explain, unless you have a rubber flap valve >> somewhere(one >> way valve), mentioned in one of the old the Rotax Service >> Information >> Letter, that prevent fuel to go toward the right tank. >> >> >> Well lets see what happen now.. >> >> >> There is still something to ask, how much fuel was left in >> the left tank? >> Was the fuel level above the venline tube where it is >> entering the left >> tank? >> >> >> >> Good Luck >> >> >> Torgeir. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > My Model IV 1200, has been feeding fuel from the right tank >> with gas in >> > the left also. I finally deceided to run to see if the gas would >> > transfer. Luckly for me, it stopped on final at our >> airport. The left >> > tank had gas in it. It would not start, we added gas to >> the right tank, >> > and after a few minutes on choke, it started. >> > >> > Question...what would cause the tanks not to flow evenly. >> We had check >> > the lines, and they all flowed. I would think the tanks >> would level up >> > when sitting on the ground, but they do not seem to cross flow. >> > >> > Suggestions please. >> > >> > Howard >> >> >> >> -- >> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: new kitfox2
Date: Dec 30, 2006
Jerry, I am in Cameron Park. Not too far from you as the crow flies. I have a Model IV and would be happy to hook up with you. The models are different, but I followed a couple of guys with Models I and II in my early building and it was helpful then. Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "jerry evans" <kitfox555(at)sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 8:58 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: new kitfox2 > I'm new to kitfox , Just purchased a kitfox 2 and I was interested in > making the rudder and the stab taller to help the yaw ? I'm still in the > stage of building before the covering. What is the thoughts has anyone > done this? Also is there anyone in North Cal near paradise that I can see > there kitfox and ask questions about building? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
Subject: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question
Date: Dec 30, 2006
The ambient cockpit temp may very well be at 68f, but I wouldn't bet on what it is under that panel. It depends on a lot of things, some of which are the radios, transponder, various other heat producing electronics, heater fluid lines and the heater core itself (if there is one), amount of heat producing sunlight hitting the (usually) dark glare shield, heat being transmitted by the firewall, etc. My EIS has an internal temp reading that is often over 120f on hot flying days. Well, hot for up here in NE Michigan anyway. I imagine it would be considerably higher down in the desert climates. Of course, this is all relative to the amount of ventilation that is provided for the electronics and I suspect that many of us have very little to nothing. Hopefully my EIS compensates for that temp difference, but if it really does, I don't know. Has anybody stuck a thermocouple up under the panel to see what their temp is? I've always planned on running a vent tube up there, but I just haven't been able to get to it. Regards, Deke S5 snip... > My EGT doesn't have any compensation built in but the documentation says it > is calibrated for 20C (68F) Since my cockpit temps seldom if ever get above > 68F the instrument is usable. Even if the cockpit temps went up to 80F the > accuracy of reading the meter because of parallax etc is probably close to > the 12F the meter will be reading too low. > > In flight my EGTs show an almost even 1100F my plugs say they are getting > good mixture so I can now depend ( to an extent ) on my EGT gauge. I will > probably continue to check my plugs every 5-10 hr. ...snip ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "john perry" <eskflyer(at)lvcisp.com>
Subject: Re: new kitfox2
Date: Dec 30, 2006
Jerry welcome to the most fun you ever experienced, The Kitfox. I have a Kitfox 2 N718PD , I have almost 700 hours on her now . Never have ever had one single problem with crosswind or adverse Yaw problems on takeoff or landing or just flying . In my humble opinion there is no need to enlarge the Vertical stabilizer or rudder . Fly safe fly low fly slow John Perry 580-695-8778 eskflyer(at)lvcisp.com Kitfox2 N718PD 582 cbox 2:62-1 Ivo inflight 3 blade 68" I'm new to kitfox , Just purchased a kitfox 2 and I was interested in making the rudder and the stab taller to help the yaw ? I'm still in the stage of building before the covering. What is the thoughts has anyone done this? Also is there anyone in North Cal near paradise that I can see there kitfox and ask questions about building? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RRTRACK(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 30, 2006
Subject: 912 UL question
Happy Holidays My newly acquired Kitfox has about five hours on new plugs ( 180 TT ). I removed them to check how they were burning. I found all the plugs on the rear two cylinders to be pure white, like right out of the box, and all the plugs on the front two cylinders to be black. I am not familiar with the 912 UL and have no idea what is causing this. It starts well and seams to run smooth with plenty of power. The A &P that did the annual 5 hours ago said the compresion was good on all cylinders. Any idea's? Mark Wisconsin Kitfox V 912 UL ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh(at)rapidnet.com>
Subject: Kitfox ad in February Kitplanes!
Date: Dec 30, 2006
I haven't seen an ad for Kitfox for some time. It is good to see one on Page 16 of Kitplanes! Randy ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Roger McConnell" <rdmac(at)swbell.net>
Subject: Re: Rotax 912-S flyers, What RPM do you look for on Climbout
?
Date: Dec 30, 2006
Hi Wingnut, I run a Rotax 912uls 100 horse with a GSC 68 inch 3 blade. My prop is pitched so I see about 5400-5500 at WOT on climb. And I cruise between 5000 and 5200. Roger Mac -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of wingnut Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 9:49 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax 912-S flyers, What RPM do you look for on Climbout ? 1 min? My operator manual reads 5 min. I pictch my IVO prop for max RPM at takeoff. The actual RPM will vary with weather but I do occationally see 5800. When I do, I throttle back to 5200 about 100ft before pattern altitude, pitch the nowse down a touch and start the cross wind turn. This usually happens around the end of the runway :-). Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84465#84465 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Possible overheating and EGT question
Date: Dec 30, 2006
All valid points Deke: The only thing I have in my panel that can generate any heat is the T&B. I tend to use my EGT mostly as a trend indicator and If I tell you my EGT was 1100F then there is an error Could be as much as 50F either way in that reading. In the mean time I'm not too worried because there is enough air leaks and draughts in the cockpit to fly a kite ( if I had more room). I fold my wings after every flight and usually do a pretty good post flight inspection so sealing the areas of air leaks isn't high priority for me. If I put the skis on this winter I'll just wear my WW II Flight pants and a good heavy parka. The documentation on your EIS should give you the operational temperature range. I think the high end will probably be around 150F (65C). After that thermal runaway of electronic components is a possibility. You will get an indication of that when your EIS just stops. Seriously though there is probably an indicator on your EIS to let you know when its too hot. My mother always said, "When all else fails.... Read the instructions". Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fox5flyer > Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 2:21 PM > To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question > > > > The ambient cockpit temp may very well be at 68f, but I > wouldn't bet on what > it is under that panel. It depends on a lot of things, some > of which are > the radios, transponder, various other heat producing > electronics, heater > fluid lines and the heater core itself (if there is one), > amount of heat > producing sunlight hitting the (usually) dark glare shield, heat being > transmitted by the firewall, etc. My EIS has an internal > temp reading that > is often over 120f on hot flying days. Well, hot for up here > in NE Michigan > anyway. I imagine it would be considerably higher down in the desert > climates. Of course, this is all relative to the amount of > ventilation that > is provided for the electronics and I suspect that many of us > have very > little to nothing. Hopefully my EIS compensates for that > temp difference, > but if it really does, I don't know. Has anybody stuck a > thermocouple up > under the panel to see what their temp is? I've always > planned on running a > vent tube up there, but I just haven't been able to get to it. > Regards, > Deke > S5 > > snip... > > My EGT doesn't have any compensation built in but the > documentation says > it > > is calibrated for 20C (68F) Since my cockpit temps seldom > if ever get > above > > 68F the instrument is usable. Even if the cockpit temps > went up to 80F > the > > accuracy of reading the meter because of parallax etc is > probably close to > > the 12F the meter will be reading too low. > > > > In flight my EGTs show an almost even 1100F my plugs say > they are getting > > good mixture so I can now depend ( to an extent ) on my > EGT gauge. I > will > > probably continue to check my plugs every 5-10 hr. > ...snip > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: new kitfox2
Date: Dec 30, 2006
For more fun try floats! Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of john perry Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 2:26 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: new kitfox2 Jerry welcome to the most fun you ever experienced, The Kitfox. I have a Kitfox 2 N718PD , I have almost 700 hours on her now . Never have ever had one single problem with crosswind or adverse Yaw problems on takeoff or landing or just flying . In my humble opinion there is no need to enlarge the Vertical stabilizer or rudder . Fly safe fly low fly slow John Perry 580-695-8778 eskflyer(at)lvcisp.com Kitfox2 N718PD 582 cbox 2:62-1 Ivo inflight 3 blade 68" I'm new to kitfox , Just purchased a kitfox 2 and I was interested in making the rudder and the stab taller to help the yaw ? I'm still in the stage of building before the covering. What is the thoughts has anyone done this? Also is there anyone in North Cal near paradise that I can see there kitfox and ask questions about building? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Fuel Flw
From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor(at)online.no>
Noel, Let's take the questions one by one. wrote: > > Torgeir: > > I followed your post with some interest. I do have a question... How do > you > calculate the right tank to have a higher head of fuel than the right > tank? > They are both at the same distance over the header tank. Sure, the head pressure is the same if; the height of the vent tube (or more correct "head pressure tube" installed on the fuel cap), the airfoil shape (the wing where the cap is located), and the relative "position cordline vs.pitot tip" is equal. The thing is, when we pre compress our main fuel tanks in this way, the air pressure inside the tank will be equal to the head pressure. Equal pressure in both main tanks is the normal condition during our flight. The pressure can't (normally) be higher in the right tank, but if the pressure is decreasing (going low) in the left tank, we can say that the pressure is higher in the right as this must be the situation in this case. You'll that an uncoordinated/banked attitude can be the factor to transfer fuel, but our tube size limit this some, so such a transfer cant go as fast as Howard experienced. Lets see some possibilities for development of "reduced" "head pressure", see- when this pressure is reduced a little we cant name it "head pressure" any more.. Remember, the top of the wing hold the static low pressure that's created at the same location as our "head pressure". "The product of static and dynamic pressure is always constant". This is one of the most important thing to remember about fluid mechanics. :) Well, the thing is that the "filler cap" gasket not only need to hold the head pressure it will also need to hold for the differential pressure over the wing, the static pressure. Now folks, you'll see this gasket is very important for our kind of fuel setup. This become more clear when we know there is restricted a flow in the "header tube", the tube that's attached to the fuel cap, try to blow through it and you should feel the resistance (this is valid -at least for the older model Kitfox). This limitation is in some matter very good, but in our case very, very, bad. Cause such a limited flow can be "overtaken" by a broken "fuel cap gasket", I.E. our supposed "head pressure" can drop below our "true" static pressure. In this situation fuel is sucked from the feeder tank due to the low pressure in the left tank, on the other side fuel is pressed into the header tank from the normally pressurized right tank. We can also have air leakage in the upper outer part of the tank, in this case not that much flow as it is just the header pressure that do the transfer. The latter one is indeed more dangerous.. > > My plane has forward facing vent tubes (on the caps) on both tanks. The > only way I can see a difference in the head of fuel from each tank is > when > both tanks are at different pressures because of differences in the cap > vents. This might be true if the limitation is to hi, It should be easy to blow through the "cap vent" and both should be equal. I use to check my main for leakage in this way; close main valves for both tank, then install a tygon housing or anything similar that can fit the "vent line". The fuel cap should be installed as normal, then blow into the housing and see if the pressure will hold without leaking - should be no leakage here.. > > There may be a little difference in the level of the plane in flight as > the > rounded cowl distorts to some extent a persons ability to tell straight > and > level. In a case like that the upper tank will empty first. Agree with you here, but it seems like Howards transfer go much faster than possible in the above example. > > As to having separate shut offs on each wing tank I heartily agree with > you. > I check the rubber tube connections on the fuel system quite often > because I > don't want a gas shower at 3000' ! Shutting off one tank will also allow > you to get a good top off for max fuel in both tanks. > Thank you Noel. Torgeir. > Noel > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of >> Torgeir Mortensen >> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 11:27 PM >> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flw >> >> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question
From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor(at)online.no>
Hi Lynn, ok., then your instrument do compensate for "cold junction", good -seems to be an excellent unit! Those "new" instruments use "high impedance" amplifiers in the first stage, therefore they do not load the "thermo couple" that much, the patch cable may then be quite long, -even long enough for a Kitfox. :) Interesting. Cheers Torgeir. > > Right on Noel, re the speaker wire...not even Monster wire would work > here. : ) Actually though, the instructions say that you CAN cut the > wires shorter: > > "NOTE: The length of wire on the EGT & CHT probes, or the extension wire > may be shortened as desired for your installation." > > A personal note on their NOTE....I'm almost certain that I recall > speaking to Sandy at Grand Rapids Technologies (EIS) about shortening > the wires, and she said that you can shorten the wires coming from the > unit...actually the connector... but NOT the probe wires. > > Torgeir- > I just read the manual re the "unit temperature"...to quote: > > "This function is displayed on the hourmeter page, and shows the > internal temperature of the instrument. It is used by the instrument for > cold-junction compensation of the EGTs and CHTs. It is also useful for > estimating the cabin temperature, as it tends to stabilize at about > 30-35 degrees F above the ambient temperature." > > It goes on to mention that it (the unit temperature) can be used to > check for excessive instrument (the EIS itself) heat, but that's not > pertinent to this discussion. > > Lynn > > On Dec 30, 2006, at 9:00 AM, Noel Loveys wrote: > >> >> Enough to say Lynn your EIS is probably a darn sight more accurate than >> my >> EGT. As long as you didn't cut any wires or use speaker zip wire in >> your >> installation. >> >> Noel >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com >>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of >>> Lynn Matteson >>> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:57 PM >>> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com >>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question >>> >>> >>> >>> I just looked for my manual for the EIS, but it's at the hangar. I >>> know they mention the cold junction, and say that it should be kept >>> as far from heat sources as possible, so they must be worried that >>> this junction will get hot and foul up the reading. But elsewhere I >>> recall reading that the unit temperature is what is used to compare >>> all other temp readings to, so I'm at a loss to say anything, >>> really...and I'm certainly no electronics person. >>> >>> Lynn >>> On Dec 29, 2006, at 3:22 PM, Torgeir Mortensen wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Lynn, >>>> >>>> Yes, you're right by now you've probably been reading my post to >>>> Lowell about this. >>>> >>>> Funny that you mention the EIS, I'm a little curious about this >>>> system, cause such a modern design should have an automatic cold >>>> junction compensation system built in, I.E. the system measure the >>>> actual instrument temperature and then correct the reading so >>>> you'll always be reading the true EGT (well, -the temp at >>> the probe). >>>> >>>> If you are using this system, it could be interesting to >>> know their >>>> cold junction reference. >>>> >>>> Yes, the principle is just the same, except that they're using an >>>> amplifier and an analog to digital converter -vola.. >>>> >>>> Torgeir >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Lowell- >>>>> >>>>> I think what Torgeir said was that the EGT reading is a >>>>> differential between the probe and the cockpit temp. My >>>>> understanding of my EIS is that it references the unit >>>>> temperature...that is, the temp of the EIS "unit" itself, and any >>>>> other temp that you are monitoring. If Torgeir was not talking >>>>> about the EIS unit, this comment may not apply. >>>>> >>>>> Lynn >>>>> On Dec 29, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Lowell Fitt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Torgeir, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have understood, as you say, that the the EGT probe is >>>>>> measuring a differential temperature between the probe and the >>>>>> end of the metal shielded lead. My lead does not terminate in >>>>>> the cockpit, although there is sufficient length to do so. The >>>>>> leads on the Lancair IV I am helping with are too short to enter >>>>>> the cockpit We coiled the leads aft of the first two cylinders >>>>>> so the leads terminate in the same relative location, but they >>>>>> are in the engine compartment. These airplanes are built to fly >>>>>> in the flight levels so positioning the terminals above the >>>>>> baffling would give the reference temps a great fluctuation. >>>>>> They are positioned below the baffles of necessity due to their >>>>>> length. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your thoughts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lowell >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torgeir Mortensen" >>>>>> >>>>>> To: >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:55 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Luis, (not sure about your name) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Funny this thing, as I thought I'll write some- about the EGT >>>>>>> system before the New Year. Hmmm... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The thing is that, the EGT system is measuring differential >>>>>>> temperature. Ok., the system that is used for measuring the >>>>>>> exhaust gas temperature is measuring temperature >>> difference, NOT >>>>>>> absolute temperature!! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, it is measuring the temperature difference between the >>>>>>> cockpit(inside cockpit temperature -NOT the OAT!) and the EGT >>>>>>> probe temperature. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: >>> http://www.opera.com/mail/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>
Subject: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question
Date: Dec 30, 2006
Quote from the (mine anyway) manual: "Unit temperatures above 170 degrees F can degrade the readability of the display. (The display will return to normal when it is cooled to normal temperatures.) Temperatures above 200 deg F can activate the internal thermal fuse, shutting down the instrument." Lynn On Dec 30, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Noel Loveys wrote: > > All valid points Deke: > > The only thing I have in my panel that can generate any heat is the > T&B. I > tend to use my EGT mostly as a trend indicator and If I tell you my > EGT was > 1100F then there is an error Could be as much as 50F either way in > that > reading. In the mean time I'm not too worried because there is > enough air > leaks and draughts in the cockpit to fly a kite ( if I had more > room). I > fold my wings after every flight and usually do a pretty good post > flight > inspection so sealing the areas of air leaks isn't high priority > for me. If > I put the skis on this winter I'll just wear my WW II Flight pants > and a > good heavy parka. > > The documentation on your EIS should give you the operational > temperature > range. I think the high end will probably be around 150F (65C). > After that > thermal runaway of electronic components is a possibility. You > will get an > indication of that when your EIS just stops. Seriously though > there is > probably an indicator on your EIS to let you know when its too hot. > > My mother always said, "When all else fails.... Read the > instructions". > > Noel > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of >> Fox5flyer >> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 2:21 PM >> To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question >> >> >> >> The ambient cockpit temp may very well be at 68f, but I >> wouldn't bet on what >> it is under that panel. It depends on a lot of things, some >> of which are >> the radios, transponder, various other heat producing >> electronics, heater >> fluid lines and the heater core itself (if there is one), >> amount of heat >> producing sunlight hitting the (usually) dark glare shield, heat >> being >> transmitted by the firewall, etc. My EIS has an internal >> temp reading that >> is often over 120f on hot flying days. Well, hot for up here >> in NE Michigan >> anyway. I imagine it would be considerably higher down in the desert >> climates. Of course, this is all relative to the amount of >> ventilation that >> is provided for the electronics and I suspect that many of us >> have very >> little to nothing. Hopefully my EIS compensates for that >> temp difference, >> but if it really does, I don't know. Has anybody stuck a >> thermocouple up >> under the panel to see what their temp is? I've always >> planned on running a >> vent tube up there, but I just haven't been able to get to it. >> Regards, >> Deke >> S5 >> >> snip... >>> My EGT doesn't have any compensation built in but the >> documentation says >> it >>> is calibrated for 20C (68F) Since my cockpit temps seldom >> if ever get >> above >>> 68F the instrument is usable. Even if the cockpit temps >> went up to 80F >> the >>> accuracy of reading the meter because of parallax etc is >> probably close to >>> the 12F the meter will be reading too low. >>> >>> In flight my EGTs show an almost even 1100F my plugs say >> they are getting >>> good mixture so I can now depend ( to an extent ) on my >> EGT gauge. I >> will >>> probably continue to check my plugs every 5-10 hr. >> ...snip >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>
Subject: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question
Date: Dec 30, 2006
Thanks for that summation, Torgeir. I'm no electronics guru...I don't even play one on TV : )...so that vote of confidence in the EIS is welcome news. Lynn p.s. Yes, the leads are quite long...mine are still coiled up behind the panel...just in case. One of these days I'll shorten them up for neatness' sake. On Dec 30, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Torgeir Mortensen wrote: > > > > Hi Lynn, > > ok., then your instrument do compensate for "cold junction", good - > seems to be an excellent unit! > > Those "new" instruments use "high impedance" amplifiers in the > first stage, therefore they do not load the "thermo couple" that > much, the patch cable may then be quite long, -even long enough for > a Kitfox. :) > > > Interesting. > > Cheers > > > Torgeir. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question
From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor(at)online.no>
Lowell and All, here's the next one about the EGT; this time about the thermocouple connection methods, just the three of them. In the end of this you'll find the visual wives of cold junction, the way I often use to explain it. This first one, is our standard Westach setup, a straight through setup accepting some error. The second one is the preferred connection setup of a thermocouple, this one has no error if it is correctly corrected for cold junction temperature and the instrument has no error! The last one is a combination of the above, but also manipulating the thermocouple resistance in order to extend the distance between probe and indicator. All of these drawings is made (yesterday night) with AutoCAD, the files is converted to jpg for the ease of presentation. (They might look a little gray, but this is due to the high compression.) Next time we'll see how "cheap devices" can be used to measure cold junction temperature and OAT. (Prob. Next year.) Torgeir. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "kirk hull" <kirkhull(at)kc.rr.com>
Subject: Kitfox ad in February Kitplanes!
Date: Dec 30, 2006
What did it cover. I don't get kitplanes _____ From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy Daughenbaugh Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 12:03 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox ad in February Kitplanes! I haven't seen an ad for Kitfox for some time. It is good to see one on Page 16 of Kitplanes!


December 21, 2006 - December 30, 2006

Kitfox-Archive.digest.vol-eh