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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Older Kitfox setting RPM |
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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> |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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: | 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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Have a great Christmas, & 582 question |
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 |
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 |
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> |
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> |
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 |
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> |
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 ?
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 ?
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 |
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 |
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: | "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 |
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 ?
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 ?
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 |
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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/
________________________________________________________________________________
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
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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> |
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> |
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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> |
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 |
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
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
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> |
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> |
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
----- 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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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?
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Joel" <foxfloatflyer(at)hotmail.com> |
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: | 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. |
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> |
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. |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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> |
> 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 |
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!! |
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/
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: First (Four) Flights!! |
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!! |
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!! |
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/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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> |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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> |
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 |
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 |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Skis for Kitfox's |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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? |
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> |
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> |
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 |
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 |
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 |
.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 |
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> |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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? |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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> |
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
========================
========================
======