Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:43 AM - Re: Re: Dynon Avionics EFIS D10 (Michel Gordillo)
2. 01:38 AM - Re: shut-off valve (Howard Firm)
3. 02:31 AM - Re: New to list with question (michel)
4. 02:33 AM - Re: return for michel was HKS engine (michel)
5. 02:43 AM - Re: Re: Short field T/O (michel)
6. 04:59 AM - Re: Re: Short field T/O (Clifford Begnaud)
7. 05:31 AM - Re: Re: Short field T/O (Clifford Begnaud)
8. 05:35 AM - Manual for Kitfox II (Patricia Truter)
9. 05:36 AM - Re: Re: Short field T/O (Clifford Begnaud)
10. 06:44 AM - Re: Loctite question (O-Rings) (Lowell Fitt)
11. 08:06 AM - Re: 618 is out (Kitfox II)! (Vicki L. Tippett)
12. 08:13 AM - Re: Re: Short field T/O (kurt schrader)
13. 08:35 AM - Re: Kurts Question - 4 wheel aircraft. (Lyle Persels)
14. 09:51 AM - Re: Re: Short field T/O (jeff.hays@aselia.com)
15. 09:55 AM - Re: Re: Short field T/O (Clifford Begnaud)
16. 10:00 AM - Re: Re: Short field T/O (Vic Jacko)
17. 10:19 AM - Why fix what isn't broken? (Scott McClintock)
18. 11:59 AM - Re: Re: Short field T/O (jeff.hays@aselia.com)
19. 12:13 PM - Re: Loctite question (Jay Fabian)
20. 12:20 PM - Re: Why fix what isn't broken? DO NOT ARCHIVE (flier)
21. 12:46 PM - 912ULS perfrmance? (Jack Seaford)
22. 01:17 PM - Re: Re: Short field T/O (Clifford Begnaud)
23. 01:19 PM - Re: Re: Short field T/O (Clifford Begnaud)
24. 01:38 PM - Re: Re: Short field T/O (kurt schrader)
25. 02:23 PM - Re: Why fix what isn't broken? (Clifford Begnaud)
26. 02:27 PM - Re: Re: Short field T/O (Michel Verheughe)
27. 02:51 PM - Re: Re: Short field T/O (kurt schrader)
28. 04:27 PM - Re: Re: Short field T/O (Kitfox)
29. 04:49 PM - Re: Compas sensor in wing tip (Torgeir Mortensen)
30. 05:02 PM - Re: Re: Short field T/O (Torgeir Mortensen)
31. 05:27 PM - Re: Loctite question (Ted Palamarek)
32. 05:38 PM - Re: Re: Short field T/O (Jeff Hays)
33. 06:07 PM - Re: 618 is out (Kitfox II)! (John Larsen)
34. 06:33 PM - Re: Loctite question (Jerry Liles)
35. 06:56 PM - Re: Loctite question (Trey Moran)
36. 07:05 PM - Re: 912ULS perfrmance? (John E. King)
37. 08:11 PM - Re: Re: Short field T/O (Bruce Harrington)
38. 08:19 PM - Re: 912ULS perfrmance? (jimshumaker)
39. 08:47 PM - Re: Loctite question (Lowell Fitt)
40. 09:54 PM - Re: Loctite question (Ted Palamarek)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dynon Avionics EFIS D10 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Michel Gordillo" <michelgordillo@telefonica.net>
The display update is fast and all I didnt see any difference between the
Dynon horizon movements and the Gyrolaser and RC Allen ones.
It is a nice instrument.
Michel
----- Original Message -----
From: <dsherburn@charter.net>
Subject: Re: Re: Kitfox-List: Dynon Avionics EFIS D10
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: <dsherburn@charter.net>
>
> Can you guys talk about "update rates"? How often does the display update?
Does it semm to "keep up"? Thanx
> ds
> >
> > From: "Michel Gordillo" <michelgordillo@telefonica.net>
> > Date: 2004/01/26 Mon PM 09:00:49 GMT
> > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Dynon Avionics EFIS D10
> >
> >
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: shut-off valve |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Howard Firm" <pianome2@mchsi.com>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
>
> Howard , not even the Adair?
> Rick
Only the tank mounted models are one way....no more two way panel
mounts....I think my first one was a Weatherhead brand...?
Howard
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New to list with question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel <michel@online.no>
>===== Original Message From Roger Rockwell <flkitfox@juno.com>
>Any hints or suggestion would be greatly appreciated.
What I did when I bought my second-hand model 3, last year, was:
1) Ask if the plane had been hangared most of the time.
2) Ask if the plane had ground-looped.
3) Ask for the technical logbook. This is compulsory in my country. I don't
know in yours.
I also know of someone who had to rebuild a model 3 because it was used as a
seaplane and the entire frame needed to be sand-blasted because of rust.
Be also cautious with non-standard equipment. What I liked with my plane was
that everything was done by-the-book, as instructed by Denneys, without fancy
modifications. Since I knew nothing about aviation, it was a comfort to me.
Good luck with your purchase.
Cheers,
Michel
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Kitfox-List:return for michel was HKS engine |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel <michel@online.no>
>===== Original Message From Matt Keyes <keyesmp@yahoo.com> =====
>Glad you found the web sites usefull. Keep me posted through the list
> on what you decide and how it goes.
I will, Matt. And many thanks too, to this highly knowledgable and helpful
list.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Short field T/O |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel <michel@online.no>
>===== Original Message From "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>Release the brakes quickly when the plane gets
>level. You may not be able to stop it with elevator.
This is where I am not following.
First, I don't think I could do this trick with my model 3, the brakes won't
hold at full throttle. But if they were:
- if there is enough propwash on the elevator to lift the tail, why wouldn't
be enough then to stop it going further when level? I agree that there is a
moment developped around the wheels when the tail lifts. But considering the
gyro effect of the prop, that pitch-down moment shouldn't be difficult to stop
with the elevator, should it?
Just wondering.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Short field T/O |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Michel,
It depends on where the CG is located. On ours, the cg is just a little too
far aft to be able to lift the elevator with propwash alone. This is easy to
determine, I hold brakes, add full power, the tail comes up and I release
brakes. Up here in Colorado the air too thin to for the propwash to hold the
tail up when I release the brakes, it just drops back down. If my CG were
further forward, like it is on the supercub in the video, then the tail
would stay up with propwash. I haven't tried this down in the thick air near
sea level. The tail might stay up with prop wash down there. Make no mistake
about it, with a yucky 0-235 out front it will nose over if the brakes are
held, and you can't stop it with the elevator. Maybe a larger elevator would
stop it and maybe I could stop it down at sea level, but not up here
(5000'++).
Cliff
>
> This is where I am not following.
> First, I don't think I could do this trick with my model 3, the brakes
won't
> hold at full throttle. But if they were:
> - if there is enough propwash on the elevator to lift the tail, why
wouldn't
> be enough then to stop it going further when level? I agree that there is
a
> moment developped around the wheels when the tail lifts. But considering
the
> gyro effect of the prop, that pitch-down moment shouldn't be difficult to
stop
> with the elevator, should it?
>
> Just wondering.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Short field T/O |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Kurt wrote:
> This is how we dream, isn't it? Imagining those
> things we can do with our planes.
>
Indeed, I've been dreaming of the day that I get to put our plane to work,
uhh I mean "PLAY" in the bush of Alaska. Almost everything that I do with
our plane is prep for that day. Should happen in 2005. In mean time, places
like Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Nebaska, Colorado and Arizona will have to do.
Guess I can suffer through it...
VG's are definately high on my priority list. I was speaking with a local
Aeronautical engineer about some ideas I have about custom building a
kitfox, mostly from scratch, and optimizing it for bush operations. He
indicated that I might not have to scratch build it but could possibly
modify a model 5/6/7.
That would be a fun discussion if anyone would like to get it going.
Best Regards,
Cliff
do not archive
> I wonder if anyone had built a 4 wheel plane like the
> COD C-2's have? Put the mains right about at the CG
> and use which ever 3rd wheel best fits the
> situation... Rock forward and the mains are behind
> the CG. Rock back and use the tailwheel. A little
> more drag than just a nose wheel I know, but it covers
> all situations except water/snow landings. :-)
>
> And what about that old KitFox byplane? How short was
> that takeoff?
>
> Well, I am installing VG's for sure...
>
> Too much fun. I got work to do.
>
> Later,
>
> Kurt S.
>
> __________________________________
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Manual for Kitfox II |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Patricia Truter" <PTruter@csir.co.za>
Does anyone have a manual for the Kitfox II (with a 582 blue top Rotax
engine)?
I would like to get a copy (or find out where I can get one/buy one) if
possible.
Patricia
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Short field T/O |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
I made an error in the post below. I should have said that it depends upon
where the main axles are located, not the CG. If the axles were further aft,
there would be less weight on the tail and it would be easier to raise it
with prop wash. I think that on Supercubs the axles are "relatively" further
back than on the Kitfox.
Cliff
> Michel,
> It depends on where the CG is located. On ours, the cg is just a little
too
> far aft to be able to lift the elevator with propwash alone. This is easy
to
> determine, I hold brakes, add full power, the tail comes up and I release
> brakes. Up here in Colorado the air too thin to for the propwash to hold
the
> tail up when I release the brakes, it just drops back down. If my CG were
> further forward, like it is on the supercub in the video, then the tail
> would stay up with propwash. I haven't tried this down in the thick air
near
> sea level. The tail might stay up with prop wash down there. Make no
mistake
> about it, with a yucky 0-235 out front it will nose over if the brakes are
> held, and you can't stop it with the elevator. Maybe a larger elevator
would
> stop it and maybe I could stop it down at sea level, but not up here
> (5000'++).
> Cliff
>
> >
> > This is where I am not following.
> > First, I don't think I could do this trick with my model 3, the brakes
> won't
> > hold at full throttle. But if they were:
> > - if there is enough propwash on the elevator to lift the tail, why
> wouldn't
> > be enough then to stop it going further when level? I agree that there
is
> a
> > moment developped around the wheels when the tail lifts. But considering
> the
> > gyro effect of the prop, that pitch-down moment shouldn't be difficult
to
> stop
> > with the elevator, should it?
> >
> > Just wondering.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Michel
> >
> > do not archive
> >
> >
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Loctite question (O-Rings) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
All the O- Rings on the Kitfox are commercially manufactured standard
O-rings. The trick is to find the mfg.part #. I knew a guy that had
discovered the part number of the valve cover rings and was able to get them
for under a dollar each.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: <Ceashman@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Loctite question
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Ceashman@aol.com
>
> Hello Jay.
>
> The Loctite that was mentioned was # 609 (green)
> I have ordered from Lockwood Aviation Supply but it is on "backorder" So I
> have no idea when it arrives. The cost for a . 34oz bottle is $15.95,
> I guess it is precious (right now it is! Its "backorder")
>
> The O rings are also precious! at $8.13 each. I replaced only the O rings
> last weekend but haven't the opportunity to fire her up yet 'cause of the
> weather. I hope that the ring change will cure the leaks. And by looking
at the
> situation, it is the O ring that is the first line of defense. If it fails
then I
> can't see the flange or elbow holding anything back.
>
> Cheers. Eric, IV. 912
>
> e-mail; ceashman@aol.com
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 618 is out (Kitfox II)! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vicki L. Tippett" <planecrazy@erols.com>
Patricia
I have a Model II with the 582 and would be happy to take digital
photos of the engine installation for you if you would like . I can help you
out with the manuel as well . Fell free to contact me off the list if you
would like " Planecrazy@erols.com "
Chuck Tippett
-------Original Message-------
From: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: 618 is out (Kitfox II)!
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Patricia Truter" <PTruter@csir.co.za>
I don't know if you can still remember: I had some problems with my 618
(lost +- 500 revs and power). The engine only had 100 hours on. MANY
people worked on it, gave advice, etc. We even exchanged the crank shaft
with another to see if that could be the problem. The bottom line: we
spent about R30 (US$4 000) on the 618 with NO improvement and finally we
bought a new 582 (blue top).
We are now working on the marriage of the 582/99 with our Kitfox II.
Now, that
exhaust system needs "folding up" inside the cowls and this can be an
exercise taking much longer than we have time for. If we could get a
head
start, that would help a lot. Any pics / drawings / ideas perhaps
available
of what other flyers did to fit the 582 exhaust into the KF II cowls?
Regards
Patricia
(I haven't been flying for almost 6 months now) :-(
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Short field T/O |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Cliff,
Scratch built? Isn't that what the Airdale is all
about? The "improved" Fox/Avid? Modifying one of
those might be easier. "Needs more wing" says one.
"Needs more HP" says another. "Needs a turbo."
"Needs NOX." "Needs 100 lb thrust model rockets for
takeoff." Slats? VG's? Lifting wing strut fairings?
More RAM? No, that's for my computer... ha ha.
I too am aiming my 5 at being a bush plane. Heading
to the Rockies, North to South, is my goal. "To go
where no man has gone before." Both land and lake
use. I want no more than 500' T/O and even less
landing distances at 8,000' altitude (on land) with 2
aboard and camping gear. And fly rod.... :-)
I'll take notes and share results. Heck, somebody has
to have another good one or better to come get me when
I mess up.
Kurt S.
--- Clifford Begnaud <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
wrote:
> I was speaking with a local Aeronautical engineer
about some ideas I have about custom building a
> kitfox, mostly from scratch, and optimizing it for
> bush operations. He indicated that I might not have
to scratch build it but could possibly modify a model
5/6/7.
> That would be a fun discussion if anyone would like
> to get it going.
> Best Regards,
> Cliff
> do not archive
__________________________________
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kurts Question - 4 wheel aircraft. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lyle Persels <lpers@mchsi.com>
I haven't flown the C-2 but in my younger days I flew the C-1 out of
Naples servicing the Mediterranean fleet, as well as thousands of hours
flying its asw counterpart, the S-2. These were "four-wheel" aircraft.
The small but very rugged retractable tailwheel we called the tail skag.
It only touched the ground if we made a very nose high no flap landing,
or on a very firm and slow carrier landing, or if the aircraft were
heavily loaded aft. In the latter case the nose wheel would be well off
the ground until the first engine was started, then it came down. Our
rule: if the nose wheel came down when the first engine was started then
the weight and balance was ok. Elbie, you're not so old. Lyle Persels
Do not archive
RiteAngle3@aol.com wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: RiteAngle3@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 1/26/04 6:19:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com writes:
>I wonder if anyone had built a 4 wheel plane like the
>COD C-2's have? Put the mains right about at the CG
>and use which ever 3rd wheel best fits the
>situation... Rock forward and the mains are behind
>the CG. Rock back and use the tailwheel. A little
>more drag than just a nose wheel I know, but it covers
>all situations except water/snow landings. :-)
>There was a conversion for the J-3 that had a nosewheel & retained the
>tailwheel. I worked for the man that invented it, Ray was managing the Tulsa
North
>airport at the time I flew it in Tulsa, OK. now known as Downtown Airport I
>believe. It was called the Testerman Gear. I flew it in '62 or so. Was a
>little more balanced than a Tri Champ. Then the Europa monogear has 4 wheels,
>one main, two outriggers & a tailwheel :-) And the O'Neil Aristocraft, Taylor
>AeroCar and so on ~~ + nearly all the amphibious float planes.
>Elbie
>I must be getting old :-)
>
>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Short field T/O |
PRIORITY_NO_NAME
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Huh? What's the deal - Are you guys talking about a different plane?
My Kitfox take's off easily under 500 ft. with two and gear. I land
on grass all the time. It has really tough landing gear. It flies down
to somewhere around 40 mph comfortably. Much slower, and really you're
in the realm of needing a rotorcraft rating anyway .. It has no mean
habits. It easily climbs with a SuperCub ... Yeah I saw Mail Call on
History Channel the other night, and admit the Jato's would be cool
for takeoff ... But that said - My plane is exactly what I built it
to be - A Kitfox.
Ok, ok. One more concession - Half a gig of Ram and a bit faster
CPU would be usefull.
The one thing more I might want, is described perfectly by the name
"Bearhawk" and I own a set of plans for that ...
What're you guys talking about????
Original Message:
-----------------
From: kurt schrader smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Short field T/O
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Cliff,
Scratch built? Isn't that what the Airdale is all
about? The "improved" Fox/Avid? Modifying one of
those might be easier. "Needs more wing" says one.
"Needs more HP" says another. "Needs a turbo."
"Needs NOX." "Needs 100 lb thrust model rockets for
takeoff." Slats? VG's? Lifting wing strut fairings?
More RAM? No, that's for my computer... ha ha.
I too am aiming my 5 at being a bush plane. Heading
to the Rockies, North to South, is my goal. "To go
where no man has gone before." Both land and lake
use. I want no more than 500' T/O and even less
landing distances at 8,000' altitude (on land) with 2
aboard and camping gear. And fly rod.... :-)
I'll take notes and share results. Heck, somebody has
to have another good one or better to come get me when
I mess up.
Kurt S.
--- Clifford Begnaud <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
wrote:
> I was speaking with a local Aeronautical engineer
about some ideas I have about custom building a
> kitfox, mostly from scratch, and optimizing it for
> bush operations. He indicated that I might not have
to scratch build it but could possibly modify a model
5/6/7.
> That would be a fun discussion if anyone would like
> to get it going.
> Best Regards,
> Cliff
> do not archive
__________________________________
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Short field T/O |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Kurt wrote:
> Scratch built? Isn't that what the Airdale is all
> about? The "improved" Fox/Avid? Modifying one of
> those might be easier. "Needs more wing" says one.
> "Needs more HP" says another. "Needs a turbo."
> "Needs NOX." "Needs 100 lb thrust model rockets for
> takeoff." Slats? VG's? Lifting wing strut fairings?
> More RAM? No, that's for my computer... ha ha.
>
Yeah, you got the idea. More wing was one of the topics, more hp, a longer
tail, perhaps slats, built in fly rod tube ;-). Oh and you forgot the
horizontally oriented propeller, about 20' length :-O
> I too am aiming my 5 at being a bush plane. Heading
> to the Rockies, North to South, is my goal. "To go
> where no man has gone before." Both land and lake
> use. I want no more than 500' T/O and even less
> landing distances at 8,000' altitude (on land) with 2
> aboard and camping gear. And fly rod.... :-)
Well, unless VG's work absolute miracles, I think a 500' takeoff at 8000'
with two on board plus gear is a bit of a stretch, though not by too much. I
hope I'm wrong.
Hate to burst your bubble, but I don't think 143 hp will quite do it. Is
your engine turboed? If so, that might do it.
You should be able to land it in 500' at 8000'.
I was up at Leadville about two weeks ago (9927'), Stan Specht also flew
along in his model 4 with Rotax 912, perhaps he will report his performance.
Climbing to nearly 13,000' for the pass crossing was a piece of cake, lots
of climb left.
The temp at Leadville was in the low 30's, I think. We were two big guys on
board with about 45 lbs of survival gear in the cargo sack. I let the
passenger do the take off and it looked to be about 1300'. Of course this
was not a max performance takeoff. I probably could have knocked off a few
hundred feet. When he gave it full throttle I had to look to see if had it
all the way in. The loss of power up there was really noticeable. The same
take off at our home airport (5100') would have been about 450', even at a
little warmer temp. I'm guessing the same takeoff at 8000' in our plane
would require about 800' at a temp in the 30's. In the summertime,
fugetaboutit!
Density altitude is a wicked thing.
I realize that you'll have more power, but you'll also have more weight. It
will be interesting to see if you can achieve these goals. If you do,
there's not a Supercub on the planet that will be able to match it. Please
keep us informed.
Kurt, what's your empty weight? Which prop? You have the NSI turbo?
Best Regards,
Cliff
Kitfox 5, yucky 0-235
> I'll take notes and share results. Heck, somebody has
> to have another good one or better to come get me when
> I mess up.
>
> Kurt S.
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Short field T/O |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Cliff, when I first bought the Oydesy battery I temporarily installed it
at the CG in the passenger seat rather than the tail box. I could get the
tail up and hold it with partial throttle with out the aircraft moving
forward. The elevator provided full control of the tail and in conjunction
with the throttle one could move the tail up or down at will with power
only! By moving the 15 pound battery forward to the CG made the tail very
light and was a blast to fly. My favorite thing to do without a cross wind
was to set take off trim, apply full throttle and just keep the airplane
straight with rudder. The airplane would take off and fly without touching
the stick! It will do the same in it current configuration but not as much
fun. The most fun was taxing back to the hanger very slowly with the tail
in the air!
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Short field T/O
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
<shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>
> I made an error in the post below. I should have said that it depends upon
> where the main axles are located, not the CG. If the axles were further
aft,
> there would be less weight on the tail and it would be easier to raise it
> with prop wash. I think that on Supercubs the axles are "relatively"
further
> back than on the Kitfox.
> Cliff
>
> > Michel,
> > It depends on where the CG is located. On ours, the cg is just a little
> too
> > far aft to be able to lift the elevator with propwash alone. This is
easy
> to
> > determine, I hold brakes, add full power, the tail comes up and I
release
> > brakes. Up here in Colorado the air too thin to for the propwash to hold
> the
> > tail up when I release the brakes, it just drops back down. If my CG
were
> > further forward, like it is on the supercub in the video, then the tail
> > would stay up with propwash. I haven't tried this down in the thick air
> near
> > sea level. The tail might stay up with prop wash down there. Make no
> mistake
> > about it, with a yucky 0-235 out front it will nose over if the brakes
are
> > held, and you can't stop it with the elevator. Maybe a larger elevator
> would
> > stop it and maybe I could stop it down at sea level, but not up here
> > (5000'++).
> > Cliff
> >
> > >
> > > This is where I am not following.
> > > First, I don't think I could do this trick with my model 3, the brakes
> > won't
> > > hold at full throttle. But if they were:
> > > - if there is enough propwash on the elevator to lift the tail, why
> > wouldn't
> > > be enough then to stop it going further when level? I agree that there
> is
> > a
> > > moment developped around the wheels when the tail lifts. But
considering
> > the
> > > gyro effect of the prop, that pitch-down moment shouldn't be difficult
> to
> > stop
> > > with the elevator, should it?
> > >
> > > Just wondering.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Michel
> > >
> > > do not archive
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Why fix what isn't broken? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock <scott_mcclintock@dot.state.ak.us>
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
I too am aiming my 5 at being a bush plane.
Kurt,
I AM using my Series V as an Alaskan Bush plane. It is quite capable of
doing all those feats you list and more.
If I was to "improve" upon this airplanes basic design it would be to:
a: "stretch out" the plane to carry more, (I max mine out with myself,
surveying gear and basic overnight gear)
the added length would make your feet a little less active on the
rudders too.
b: Additional horsepower (150+ would be nice, especially with additional
capacity)
(Something like a Murphy Rebel or Moose)
The Series V is an excellent Bush plane "as-is". A few things to
remember when using the KitFox in Alaska are:
Don't overload it. If you need more useful load, get rid of as much
"extras" as you can without sacrificing fuel capacity.
Install a block/oil heater. When it gets REAL COLD, you will just hurt
your engine trying to cold start it. When I am on the ground for only a
few hours, I wrap my cowl with my sleeping bag to hold in the heat. All
of the bush airports have electricity. You may have to make "buddies"
with the village airport maintenance guy (how you do that is up to you
but remember that most of the villages are "dry" and if you offer to
share your flask the VPSO or Trooper may impound your airplane!)
I never have any problem finding an outlet to "plug-in".
Remember that ALL Kitfoxes are relatively light weight. You WILL take a
beating in turbulence! Before taking off, I generally call a couple of
the local air taxi guys for pireps. I also get a FULL briefing from FSS
to include pireps. If the reports or forecasts call for moderate or
worse turbulence, I keep her home. Also keep in mind that most of the
Bush airstrips DO NOT have much in the way of GA facilities, including
tie-downs. I have my own "screw-in" ties which are almost worthless when
it really blows but better than nothing. I usually push my plane to the
lea side of the SREB (snow equip. removal building) which are at
most/all Bush airports.
(As I work for the State of Alaska and actually am an Airport Design
Engineer for Western District, I'm doing my best to improve this.)
Boy, I just realized.........There's a whole lot more "stuff" that you
need to know before even trying to come up here and attempting to fly in
the Bush. I could write a book, but there are others that already have.
Get yourself a copy of the "Alaska Logbook". It is a spiral bound and
has a lot of "good stuff" in it without pulling any punches. I can't
remember the author's name but that's the name of the book. I don't have
my copy here, it's in my plane.
If you want more you can contact me off-list and I will be happy to
scare the hell out of you.
Scott McClintock
"Arctic Fox" N772HR
Nome
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Short field T/O |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Hey Cliff -
I learned to fly right next door to you at KBJC. I was really poor
and could only afford C152's back then. They make great mountain planes
if you learn to fly in the mountains like the glider pilots do. Heck a
C152, even if it only gets 100 fpm climb, kicks the crap out of the best
all composite sailplane - Since all sailplanes only descend, and cannot
climb at all (less motor gliders of course) ...
SO I think, if you're Kitfox is having a hard time ... Cause mine beats
the crap out of a C152 any day!
Jeff.
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Vic Jacko vicwj@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Short field T/O
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Cliff, when I first bought the Oydesy battery I temporarily installed it
at the CG in the passenger seat rather than the tail box. I could get the
tail up and hold it with partial throttle with out the aircraft moving
forward. The elevator provided full control of the tail and in conjunction
with the throttle one could move the tail up or down at will with power
only! By moving the 15 pound battery forward to the CG made the tail very
light and was a blast to fly. My favorite thing to do without a cross wind
was to set take off trim, apply full throttle and just keep the airplane
straight with rudder. The airplane would take off and fly without touching
the stick! It will do the same in it current configuration but not as much
fun. The most fun was taxing back to the hanger very slowly with the tail
in the air!
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Short field T/O
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
<shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>
> I made an error in the post below. I should have said that it depends upon
> where the main axles are located, not the CG. If the axles were further
aft,
> there would be less weight on the tail and it would be easier to raise it
> with prop wash. I think that on Supercubs the axles are "relatively"
further
> back than on the Kitfox.
> Cliff
>
> > Michel,
> > It depends on where the CG is located. On ours, the cg is just a little
> too
> > far aft to be able to lift the elevator with propwash alone. This is
easy
> to
> > determine, I hold brakes, add full power, the tail comes up and I
release
> > brakes. Up here in Colorado the air too thin to for the propwash to hold
> the
> > tail up when I release the brakes, it just drops back down. If my CG
were
> > further forward, like it is on the supercub in the video, then the tail
> > would stay up with propwash. I haven't tried this down in the thick air
> near
> > sea level. The tail might stay up with prop wash down there. Make no
> mistake
> > about it, with a yucky 0-235 out front it will nose over if the brakes
are
> > held, and you can't stop it with the elevator. Maybe a larger elevator
> would
> > stop it and maybe I could stop it down at sea level, but not up here
> > (5000'++).
> > Cliff
> >
> > >
> > > This is where I am not following.
> > > First, I don't think I could do this trick with my model 3, the brakes
> > won't
> > > hold at full throttle. But if they were:
> > > - if there is enough propwash on the elevator to lift the tail, why
> > wouldn't
> > > be enough then to stop it going further when level? I agree that there
> is
> > a
> > > moment developped around the wheels when the tail lifts. But
considering
> > the
> > > gyro effect of the prop, that pitch-down moment shouldn't be difficult
> to
> > stop
> > > with the elevator, should it?
> > >
> > > Just wondering.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Michel
> > >
> > > do not archive
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Loctite question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jay Fabian" <experimental208nd@comcast.net>
The Loctite #609 on the www.wttool.com site has it at 10ml= $10.45 and
50ml= $29.10. I do not know the conversion between ml and oz.
Any way hope it helps.
Jay
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Ceashman@aol.com
> >
> > Hello Jay.
> >
> > The Loctite that was mentioned was # 609 (green)
> > I have ordered from Lockwood Aviation Supply but it is on "backorder" So
I
> > have no idea when it arrives. The cost for a . 34oz bottle is $15.95,
> > I guess it is precious (right now it is! Its "backorder")
> >
> > The O rings are also precious! at $8.13 each. I replaced only the O
rings
> > last weekend but haven't the opportunity to fire her up yet 'cause of
the
> > weather. I hope that the ring change will cure the leaks. And by looking
> at the
> > situation, it is the O ring that is the first line of defense. If it
fails
> then I
> > can't see the flange or elbow holding anything back.
> >
> > Cheers. Eric, IV. 912
> >
> > e-mail; ceashman@aol.com
> >
> >
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Why fix what isn't broken? DO NOT ARCHIVE |
Yep, I consider my IV a bush plane too.
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
I accidentally taxied over one just the other day.
It was more a shrub than a bush though ;
)
--- Original Message ---
From: Scott McClintock
<scott_mcclintock@dot.state.ak.us>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Why fix what isn't broken?
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock
<scott_mcclintock@dot.state.ak.us>
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
><smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
>I too am aiming my 5 at being a bush plane.
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 912ULS perfrmance? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jack Seaford" <jseaford@bellsouth.net>
I am to the Kitfox world, I have a model 4-1200 with 912 ULS Rotax.
I would like to know what you guys and gals cruise those engines at. Like what
RPM at cruise, and what RPM on down wind etc, and will it hurt the engine to cruise
at slow RPMs? My engine seems to be the smoothest at 4800 to 5200 RPMs,
but it is also smooth at 3200,3300 RPMs.
At 4000 RPMs the engine has a rough spot.
My static RPM is around 5200. The prop is a 3 blade Warpdrive.
Thanks
Jack
4-1200
N170NH
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Short field T/O |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Jeff,
Are you raggin on me again? ;-)
cliff
>
> Hey Cliff -
>
> I learned to fly right next door to you at KBJC. I was really poor
> and could only afford C152's back then. They make great mountain planes
> if you learn to fly in the mountains like the glider pilots do. Heck a
> C152, even if it only gets 100 fpm climb, kicks the crap out of the best
> all composite sailplane - Since all sailplanes only descend, and cannot
> climb at all (less motor gliders of course) ...
>
> SO I think, if you're Kitfox is having a hard time ... Cause mine beats
> the crap out of a C152 any day!
>
> Jeff.
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Vic Jacko vicwj@earthlink.net
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:57:26 -0700
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Short field T/O
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
>
> Cliff, when I first bought the Oydesy battery I temporarily installed
it
> at the CG in the passenger seat rather than the tail box. I could get
the
> tail up and hold it with partial throttle with out the aircraft moving
> forward. The elevator provided full control of the tail and in
conjunction
> with the throttle one could move the tail up or down at will with power
> only! By moving the 15 pound battery forward to the CG made the tail
very
> light and was a blast to fly. My favorite thing to do without a cross
wind
> was to set take off trim, apply full throttle and just keep the airplane
> straight with rudder. The airplane would take off and fly without
touching
> the stick! It will do the same in it current configuration but not as
much
> fun. The most fun was taxing back to the hanger very slowly with the tail
> in the air!
>
> Vic
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Short field T/O
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
> <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
> >
> > I made an error in the post below. I should have said that it depends
upon
> > where the main axles are located, not the CG. If the axles were further
> aft,
> > there would be less weight on the tail and it would be easier to raise
it
> > with prop wash. I think that on Supercubs the axles are "relatively"
> further
> > back than on the Kitfox.
> > Cliff
> >
> > > Michel,
> > > It depends on where the CG is located. On ours, the cg is just a
little
> > too
> > > far aft to be able to lift the elevator with propwash alone. This is
> easy
> > to
> > > determine, I hold brakes, add full power, the tail comes up and I
> release
> > > brakes. Up here in Colorado the air too thin to for the propwash to
hold
> > the
> > > tail up when I release the brakes, it just drops back down. If my CG
> were
> > > further forward, like it is on the supercub in the video, then the
tail
> > > would stay up with propwash. I haven't tried this down in the thick
air
> > near
> > > sea level. The tail might stay up with prop wash down there. Make no
> > mistake
> > > about it, with a yucky 0-235 out front it will nose over if the brakes
> are
> > > held, and you can't stop it with the elevator. Maybe a larger elevator
> > would
> > > stop it and maybe I could stop it down at sea level, but not up here
> > > (5000'++).
> > > Cliff
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This is where I am not following.
> > > > First, I don't think I could do this trick with my model 3, the
brakes
> > > won't
> > > > hold at full throttle. But if they were:
> > > > - if there is enough propwash on the elevator to lift the tail, why
> > > wouldn't
> > > > be enough then to stop it going further when level? I agree that
there
> > is
> > > a
> > > > moment developped around the wheels when the tail lifts. But
> considering
> > > the
> > > > gyro effect of the prop, that pitch-down moment shouldn't be
difficult
> > to
> > > stop
> > > > with the elevator, should it?
> > > >
> > > > Just wondering.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Michel
> > > >
> > > > do not archive
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Short field T/O |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Vic,
Thanks, I suspected as much and plan to make a more forward mount for the
battery.
This is also needed to be able to use the full 150# capacity of the cargo
sack (CG limits).
Having the battery back there is fine for landings, but hurts takeoff.
Also, remember that the air is thinner up here and that effects it's ability
to keep the tail up.
Cliff
>
> Cliff, when I first bought the Oydesy battery I temporarily installed
it
> at the CG in the passenger seat rather than the tail box. I could get
the
> tail up and hold it with partial throttle with out the aircraft moving
> forward. The elevator provided full control of the tail and in
conjunction
> with the throttle one could move the tail up or down at will with power
> only! By moving the 15 pound battery forward to the CG made the tail
very
> light and was a blast to fly. My favorite thing to do without a cross
wind
> was to set take off trim, apply full throttle and just keep the airplane
> straight with rudder. The airplane would take off and fly without
touching
> the stick! It will do the same in it current configuration but not as
much
> fun. The most fun was taxing back to the hanger very slowly with the tail
> in the air!
>
> Vic
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Short field T/O
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
> <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
> >
> > I made an error in the post below. I should have said that it depends
upon
> > where the main axles are located, not the CG. If the axles were further
> aft,
> > there would be less weight on the tail and it would be easier to raise
it
> > with prop wash. I think that on Supercubs the axles are "relatively"
> further
> > back than on the Kitfox.
> > Cliff
> >
> > > Michel,
> > > It depends on where the CG is located. On ours, the cg is just a
little
> > too
> > > far aft to be able to lift the elevator with propwash alone. This is
> easy
> > to
> > > determine, I hold brakes, add full power, the tail comes up and I
> release
> > > brakes. Up here in Colorado the air too thin to for the propwash to
hold
> > the
> > > tail up when I release the brakes, it just drops back down. If my CG
> were
> > > further forward, like it is on the supercub in the video, then the
tail
> > > would stay up with propwash. I haven't tried this down in the thick
air
> > near
> > > sea level. The tail might stay up with prop wash down there. Make no
> > mistake
> > > about it, with a yucky 0-235 out front it will nose over if the brakes
> are
> > > held, and you can't stop it with the elevator. Maybe a larger elevator
> > would
> > > stop it and maybe I could stop it down at sea level, but not up here
> > > (5000'++).
> > > Cliff
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This is where I am not following.
> > > > First, I don't think I could do this trick with my model 3, the
brakes
> > > won't
> > > > hold at full throttle. But if they were:
> > > > - if there is enough propwash on the elevator to lift the tail, why
> > > wouldn't
> > > > be enough then to stop it going further when level? I agree that
there
> > is
> > > a
> > > > moment developped around the wheels when the tail lifts. But
> considering
> > > the
> > > > gyro effect of the prop, that pitch-down moment shouldn't be
difficult
> > to
> > > stop
> > > > with the elevator, should it?
> > > >
> > > > Just wondering.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Michel
> > > >
> > > > do not archive
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Short field T/O |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Jeff,
Well, at sea level mine does a good job too. Haven't
done more than 6 T/O's with it so far though. Maybe a
few more landings... :-( It is snowing now. 1/2 inch
of ice on everything from yesterday too. No testing
until it gets a bit warmer I expect. I am still just
dreaming of what I want it to do.
But my plane seems to average a comfortable 6-8
seconds of roll on a normal T/O. I gotta' do that
testing stuff to see what it will really do. Only no
flap landings so far. It stalled at 39-40 KIAS clean
at about 1250 lbs. (No VG's) I will not use less than
1,800' of runway until I finish testing. Reports will
occur as I get good repeatable data. Then I can talk
of reality. :-)
Kurt S.
--- "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by:
> "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
>
> What're you guys talking about????
__________________________________
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Why fix what isn't broken? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
The "Alaska Airman's Logbook" can be found here:
http://www.alaskaairmen.com/
Click the "For Sale" link. There's some interesting videos for sale also.
Another good Bush Flying book is by F.E. Potts, order it here:
http://www.fepco.com
I've got a set of "Supercubs Hardcore" videos. These are great and very
instructional, but I don't know where to get them anymore.
Scott, what engine/prop are you using?
Where in Alaska are you based?
I agree that the V is an excellent bush plane, but as you described there
are areas where it could be improved. I worry about the spring gear for "off
airport" landings. The distance between the front and rear mounting points
are awfully close together. This makes it more susceptible to shearing
damage than a supercub type gear. I also would extend the fuselage for more
cargo space and to accommodate a larger engine (0-320). I would also like to
see a beefier tailwheel spring and mount. A longer wing would also help
(just a little longer).
Cliff
> I too am aiming my 5 at being a bush plane.
>
> Kurt,
> I AM using my Series V as an Alaskan Bush plane. It is quite capable of
> doing all those feats you list and more.
> If I was to "improve" upon this airplanes basic design it would be to:
> a: "stretch out" the plane to carry more, (I max mine out with myself,
> surveying gear and basic overnight gear)
> the added length would make your feet a little less active on the
> rudders too.
> b: Additional horsepower (150+ would be nice, especially with additional
> capacity)
> (Something like a Murphy Rebel or Moose)
>
> The Series V is an excellent Bush plane "as-is". A few things to
> remember when using the KitFox in Alaska are:
>
> Don't overload it. If you need more useful load, get rid of as much
> "extras" as you can without sacrificing fuel capacity.
> Install a block/oil heater. When it gets REAL COLD, you will just hurt
> your engine trying to cold start it. When I am on the ground for only a
> few hours, I wrap my cowl with my sleeping bag to hold in the heat. All
> of the bush airports have electricity. You may have to make "buddies"
> with the village airport maintenance guy (how you do that is up to you
> but remember that most of the villages are "dry" and if you offer to
> share your flask the VPSO or Trooper may impound your airplane!)
> I never have any problem finding an outlet to "plug-in".
> Remember that ALL Kitfoxes are relatively light weight. You WILL take a
> beating in turbulence! Before taking off, I generally call a couple of
> the local air taxi guys for pireps. I also get a FULL briefing from FSS
> to include pireps. If the reports or forecasts call for moderate or
> worse turbulence, I keep her home. Also keep in mind that most of the
> Bush airstrips DO NOT have much in the way of GA facilities, including
> tie-downs. I have my own "screw-in" ties which are almost worthless when
> it really blows but better than nothing. I usually push my plane to the
> lea side of the SREB (snow equip. removal building) which are at
> most/all Bush airports.
> (As I work for the State of Alaska and actually am an Airport Design
> Engineer for Western District, I'm doing my best to improve this.)
> Boy, I just realized.........There's a whole lot more "stuff" that you
> need to know before even trying to come up here and attempting to fly in
> the Bush. I could write a book, but there are others that already have.
> Get yourself a copy of the "Alaska Logbook". It is a spiral bound and
> has a lot of "good stuff" in it without pulling any punches. I can't
> remember the author's name but that's the name of the book. I don't have
> my copy here, it's in my plane.
>
> If you want more you can contact me off-list and I will be happy to
> scare the hell out of you.
>
> Scott McClintock
> "Arctic Fox" N772HR
> Nome
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Short field T/O |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Clifford Begnaud wrote:
> I made an error in the post below. I should have said that it depends upon
> where the main axles are located, not the CG.
Or rather, the main axles in relation to the CoG, yes I understood that, Cliff.
With my light engine (582) and header tank behind me, I have a rather aft CoG
and no wonder I can't raise my tail that easily.
Cheers,
Michel
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Short field T/O |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Cliff,
When I first started looking at engines, I thought the
O-200 would be a good compromise. They are
tough.(There was no 100hp Rotax then.) But as I
hardened up my requirements, the Turbo NSI took the
lead. It puts out full power up to around 12-14,000',
so the performance depends upon wing and prop losses
with altitude up to that. The O-235 or 240 were in
the running too, but upkeep and operating costs, plus
the use of boat dock fuel if needed, swayed me. I am
wary of that 914 for cost and TBO. To each their
own...
If I can lift 600 lbs including gas on wheels in 250
feet at sea level, I hope to make it in 500' at
7-8,000'. Only testing will tell.
I envy those of you with stalls around 30 mph. My
goal is as slow as possible, but with VG's and flaps I
might only make 35 kts or 41 mph at gross. One
requirement is that I be able to leave any place I can
land in, distance wise. Well, not on floats, but on
wheels at least.
"Hi" to Stan Specht if you see him again. We had a
good time last year at S&F together.
So the answers are:
NSI Turbo Soob ~ 143hp
NSI CAP 140 prop w/Warp Drive blades (reversable
for on water)
922 empty weight, but in need of fairings and
radiator scoop.
Gross of 1550 normal for land, but approved for
1750, which I plan only to use with floats.
Right now the W&B works out to a max of 135 lbs in
the back with 2 up front. I need to lose weight!
I might replace my panel in the future with a light
weight setup with all these new displays coming out.
But that is $ and time far in the future.
Kurt S.
__________________________________
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Short field T/O |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kitfox" <Kitfox@chrisbates.co.uk>
Michel,
Try v1agra, I understand it works a treat!!
Chris ;>)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Short field T/O
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> Clifford Begnaud wrote:
> > I made an error in the post below. I should have said that it depends
upon
> > where the main axles are located, not the CG.
>
> Or rather, the main axles in relation to the CoG, yes I understood that,
Cliff.
> With my light engine (582) and header tank behind me, I have a rather aft
CoG
> and no wonder I can't raise my tail that easily.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compas sensor in wing tip |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Hi Folks,
I must comment this one! Our experimental aircraft is operated as a
"standard aircraft" AFTER the "test period".
I.E. You can fly the same routes, same altitudes and SAME rules as
"standard aircraft" ( C-192, Piper Ch. 140 etc.)
All of the above is operating according to FAR Part 91, here you'll find
anything -even, the limitation during the "test period" for an
experimental aircraft.
OK. Here is just a little of FAR part 91:
Sec. 91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S.
airworthiness
certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.
(a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(3) and (e) of this
section, no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a
standard
category U.S. airworthiness certificate in any operation described in
paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section unless that aircraft
contains the
instruments and equipment specified in those paragraphs (or
FAA-approved
equivalents) for that type of operation, and those instruments and
items of
equipment are in operable condition.
(b) Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the
following
instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Airspeed indicator.
(2) Altimeter.
(3) Magnetic direction indicator.
(4) Tachometer for each engine.
(5) Oil pressure gauge for each engine using pressure system.
(6) Temperature gauge for each liquid-cooled engine.
(7) Oil temperature gauge for each air-cooled engine.
(8) Manifold pressure gauge for each altitude engine.
(9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank.
(10) Landing gear position indicator, if the aircraft has a
retractable
landing gear.
(11) For small civil airplanes certificated after March 11, 1996, in
accordance with part 23 of this chapter, an approved aviation red or
aviation
white anticollision light system. In the event of failure of any light
of the
anticollision light system, operation of the aircraft may continue to
a
location where repairs or replacement can be made.
Also, in my EAA manual the check list include the compass and the above
instruments.
Did you know that the compass is mandatory to be checked every second
year?
(If you think this is bad, -well, the certified "IFR AC's" or a
commercially (VFR operated) has to do this every year!)
For a two stroke water cooled engine, water temperature indicator is
required. For an air cooled two stroke the cyl. temp indicator is
required.
As you have the same rights as standard aircraft's, you must gratify
same "instrument standard" as "standard aircraft", logical isn't..
In this case we are talking about VFR...
Well, here is a link to "FAR part 91":
http://www.safetydata.com/far-91.htm
Torgeir.
Rick wrote:
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
>
> OK Guys lets get an independent among us to call the EAA and get an answer.
> I did this some time ago. You do not have to have a compass in an
> experimental VFR aircraft. Please post the response for all to see. You may
> want, need, like or are use to but don't have to, have one.
>
> Rick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of dmorisse
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Compas sensor in wing tip
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dmorisse" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
> I've got an electronic compass by Richie that has always been a problem
> because I have the fluxgate in the baggage area where it's affected each
> time I put something back there with any metal. I've often considered
> installing in a wing tip, but was reluctant to do so because of the flapping
> inertia during travel through turbulence. The sensor has a moving part in
> it that seems would be sensitive to a lot of bumping around. Is this an
> issue or should I just install it in the wing tip? Of course it would
> require getting an extention cable from Richie, but I don't think that it
> would be a problem. Any opinions?
> Darrel
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons"
> <noel@blueskyaviation.net>
> >
> > John,
> >
> > You are required by the FAA to have a magnetic compass, so I put one in
> the
> > normal spot. The Dynon has one too and you will have to mount the
> fluxgate
> > out in the wing tip way away from metal.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> > kerrjohna@comcast.net
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Dynon Avionics EFIS D10
> >
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
> >
> > Noel, what have you done for magnetic compass when using the dynon? Do Not
> > Archive.
> >
> > John Kerr
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons"
> > > <noel@blueskyaviation.net>
> > >
> > > Jimmy,
> > >
> > > I was actually one of the first 10 or so customers to get the instrument
> > in
> > > and flying. I have installed the Dynon in three panels now, one plug
> and
> > > play the other two were aircraft (RV-6A and RV-9A) that I built have
> test
> > > flown. The only thing I can say is WOW. There will be nothing you can
> do
> > > in a Kitfox to saturate it, or gray the screen, it only takes a few
> > seconds
> > > for it to catch up. (Big statement, I'm sure someone can but most are
> > smart
> > > enough not to try). I have done stall turns, spins, aileron rolls,
> loops,
> > > Cuban eights, -g's. and only once have I saturated the unit, but I was
> > > trying!
> > >
> > > 1.Light
> > > 2.replaces your blind encoder
> > > 3.has it's own back up power internally
> > > 4.the company is wonderful to work with. You call about a
> > question and
> > > you
> > > get it answered.
> > >
> > >
> > > I like the belt and suspenders so I always add an airspeed and altimeter
> > > next to it but you will find that the information is much easier to read
> > on
> > > the Dynon and you will not look at the others.
> > >
> > > For the ultimate check out Grand Rapids Tech's new EFIS that integrates
> > with
> > > there EIS and a GPS.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Noel Simmons
> > > Blue Sky Aviation, Inc.
> > > Phone & Fax: 406-538-6574
> > > noel@blueskyaviation.net <mailto:noel@blueskyaviation.net>
> > > www.blueskyaviation.net <http://www.blueskyaviation.net>
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jimmie
> > > Blackwell
> > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Dynon Avionics EFIS D10
> > >
> > >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell"
> > <jablackwell@ev1.net>
> > >
> > > List
> > >
> > > I noted a product in the last issue of Kitplanes that is new to me and
> was
> > > wondering if anyone on the list has tested this instrument. It is on
> page
> > > 31 one of the February issue of Kitplanes. If it does what they say it
> > sure
> > > would save a lot of instrument panel space and possibly weight as it
> > > provides an attitude indicator, airspeed, altitude, compass, turn rate,
> > > slip/skid ball, clock, gmeter, vertical speed and voltmeter. All this
> on
> > > about a 3" x 4" screen.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Short field T/O |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Hi Michel,
I can assure you that, it is very easy to rice the tail in an early mod
Kitfox, can do this easily, even with two people in cockpit. But be
warned here; this operation is the "rudder pedal breaker", as this is
just more than hard breaking action. Also, this can be dangerous to do
in "no wind" situations, this as the whole aircraft can rotate around
the mains- and you'll know the rest..
Torgeir.
Michel Verheughe wrote:
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> Clifford Begnaud wrote:
> > I made an error in the post below. I should have said that it depends upon
> > where the main axles are located, not the CG.
>
> Or rather, the main axles in relation to the CoG, yes I understood that, Cliff.
> With my light engine (582) and header tank behind me, I have a rather aft CoG
> and no wonder I can't raise my tail that easily.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Loctite question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ted Palamarek" <temco@telusplanet.net>
Jay
There really isn't a conversion between ml and oz, as one is
volume and the other is weight. However, one ounce is equal
to 28.35 grams and one cubic inch is equal to 16.29
millilitres.
Ted
<<<<SNIP>>>>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Loctite question
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jay Fabian"
<experimental208nd@comcast.net>
The Loctite #609 on the www.wttool.com site has it at 10ml$10.45 and
50ml= $29.10. I do not know the conversion between ml
and oz.
Any way hope it helps.
Jay
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Short field T/O |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Hays" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Probably. Most likely some inner jealousy because I'm stuck here in Chicago,
and you're out there in Colorado. :)
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Clifford
Begnaud
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Short field T/O
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
<shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Jeff,
Are you raggin on me again? ;-)
cliff
>
> Hey Cliff -
>
> I learned to fly right next door to you at KBJC. I was really poor
> and could only afford C152's back then. They make great mountain planes
> if you learn to fly in the mountains like the glider pilots do. Heck a
> C152, even if it only gets 100 fpm climb, kicks the crap out of the best
> all composite sailplane - Since all sailplanes only descend, and cannot
> climb at all (less motor gliders of course) ...
>
> SO I think, if you're Kitfox is having a hard time ... Cause mine beats
> the crap out of a C152 any day!
>
> Jeff.
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Vic Jacko vicwj@earthlink.net
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:57:26 -0700
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Short field T/O
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
>
> Cliff, when I first bought the Oydesy battery I temporarily installed
it
> at the CG in the passenger seat rather than the tail box. I could get
the
> tail up and hold it with partial throttle with out the aircraft moving
> forward. The elevator provided full control of the tail and in
conjunction
> with the throttle one could move the tail up or down at will with power
> only! By moving the 15 pound battery forward to the CG made the tail
very
> light and was a blast to fly. My favorite thing to do without a cross
wind
> was to set take off trim, apply full throttle and just keep the airplane
> straight with rudder. The airplane would take off and fly without
touching
> the stick! It will do the same in it current configuration but not as
much
> fun. The most fun was taxing back to the hanger very slowly with the tail
> in the air!
>
> Vic
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Short field T/O
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
> <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
> >
> > I made an error in the post below. I should have said that it depends
upon
> > where the main axles are located, not the CG. If the axles were further
> aft,
> > there would be less weight on the tail and it would be easier to raise
it
> > with prop wash. I think that on Supercubs the axles are "relatively"
> further
> > back than on the Kitfox.
> > Cliff
> >
> > > Michel,
> > > It depends on where the CG is located. On ours, the cg is just a
little
> > too
> > > far aft to be able to lift the elevator with propwash alone. This is
> easy
> > to
> > > determine, I hold brakes, add full power, the tail comes up and I
> release
> > > brakes. Up here in Colorado the air too thin to for the propwash to
hold
> > the
> > > tail up when I release the brakes, it just drops back down. If my CG
> were
> > > further forward, like it is on the supercub in the video, then the
tail
> > > would stay up with propwash. I haven't tried this down in the thick
air
> > near
> > > sea level. The tail might stay up with prop wash down there. Make no
> > mistake
> > > about it, with a yucky 0-235 out front it will nose over if the brakes
> are
> > > held, and you can't stop it with the elevator. Maybe a larger elevator
> > would
> > > stop it and maybe I could stop it down at sea level, but not up here
> > > (5000'++).
> > > Cliff
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This is where I am not following.
> > > > First, I don't think I could do this trick with my model 3, the
brakes
> > > won't
> > > > hold at full throttle. But if they were:
> > > > - if there is enough propwash on the elevator to lift the tail, why
> > > wouldn't
> > > > be enough then to stop it going further when level? I agree that
there
> > is
> > > a
> > > > moment developped around the wheels when the tail lifts. But
> considering
> > > the
> > > > gyro effect of the prop, that pitch-down moment shouldn't be
difficult
> > to
> > > stop
> > > > with the elevator, should it?
> > > >
> > > > Just wondering.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Michel
> > > >
> > > > do not archive
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 618 is out (Kitfox II)! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com>
Just a note; With modes 1-3, the factory used to cut 2 inches out of
the cone of the exhaust to make it fit the cowl. This took about 7 hp
from the engine. One of the fixes we did on the model 4 was to re
configure the cowl so this trimming was not necessary. You can put an
extra bend in the exhaust on the earlier models, and avoid de tuning the
pipe, although it has been so long since I worked for the factory, that
I cannot remember exactly what we did.
Vicki L. Tippett wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vicki L. Tippett" <planecrazy@erols.com>
>
> Patricia
>
> I have a Model II with the 582 and would be happy to take digital
>photos of the engine installation for you if you would like . I can help you
>out with the manuel as well . Fell free to contact me off the list if you
>would like " Planecrazy@erols.com "
>
> Chuck Tippett
>
>-------Original Message-------
>
>From: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 3:03:34 AM
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Kitfox-List: 618 is out (Kitfox II)!
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Patricia Truter" <PTruter@csir.co.za>
>
>I don't know if you can still remember: I had some problems with my 618
>(lost +- 500 revs and power). The engine only had 100 hours on. MANY
>people worked on it, gave advice, etc. We even exchanged the crank shaft
>with another to see if that could be the problem. The bottom line: we
>spent about R30 (US$4 000) on the 618 with NO improvement and finally we
>bought a new 582 (blue top).
>
>We are now working on the marriage of the 582/99 with our Kitfox II.
>Now, that
>exhaust system needs "folding up" inside the cowls and this can be an
>exercise taking much longer than we have time for. If we could get a
>head
>start, that would help a lot. Any pics / drawings / ideas perhaps
>available
>of what other flyers did to fit the 582 exhaust into the KF II cowls?
>
>Regards
>
>Patricia
>(I haven't been flying for almost 6 months now) :-(
>
>
>
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Loctite question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
Excpt there is a volume called the "fluid Ounce" . Eight of these make
a cup (1/2 pint) and two pints make a quart (32 fluid oz). A little
math can derive the conversion.
Jerry Liles
Ted Palamarek wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ted Palamarek" <temco@telusplanet.net>
>
>Jay
>
>There really isn't a conversion between ml and oz, as one is
>volume and the other is weight. However, one ounce is equal
>to 28.35 grams and one cubic inch is equal to 16.29
>millilitres.
>
>Ted
>
><<<<SNIP>>>>
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Loctite question
>
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jay Fabian"
><experimental208nd@comcast.net>
>
>
>The Loctite #609 on the www.wttool.com site has it at 10ml$10.45 and
>50ml= $29.10. I do not know the conversion between ml
>and oz.
>Any way hope it helps.
>
>
>
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Loctite question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Trey Moran" <ffmoran@centurytel.net>
16 fluid ounces is very slightly more than 450ml according to my wife's measuring
cup.
Trey Moran
----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry Liles
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Loctite question
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
Excpt there is a volume called the "fluid Ounce" . Eight of these make
a cup (1/2 pint) and two pints make a quart (32 fluid oz). A little
math can derive the conversion.
Jerry Liles
Ted Palamarek wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ted Palamarek" <temco@telusplanet.net>
>
>Jay
>
>There really isn't a conversion between ml and oz, as one is
>volume and the other is weight. However, one ounce is equal
>to 28.35 grams and one cubic inch is equal to 16.29
>millilitres.
>
>Ted
>
><<<<SNIP>>>>
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Loctite question
>
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jay Fabian"
><experimental208nd@comcast.net>
>
>
>The Loctite #609 on the www.wttool.com site has it at 10ml$10.45 and
>50ml $29.10. I do not know the conversion between ml
>and oz.
>Any way hope it helps.
>
>
>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912ULS perfrmance? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John E. King " <kingjohn@erols.com>
Jack,
Rotax technical people state that the 912 series engines should maintain
cruise speeds above 5,000 rpm. Sustained cruise speeds below 5,000 rpm
is not recommended. They say that it is designed to cruise best at
5,400 rpm. As soon as I get down wind I try to be at 5,000 rpm and then
to idle when I am adjacent to the touch down point. I also make sure my
idle speed on the ground is not less than 2,000 rpm. I think 1,800 rpm
is ok, but below that is not good for the gear box.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
Jack Seaford wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jack Seaford" <jseaford@bellsouth.net>
>
>I am to the Kitfox world, I have a model 4-1200 with 912 ULS Rotax.
>I would like to know what you guys and gals cruise those engines at. Like what
RPM at cruise, and what RPM on down wind etc, and will it hurt the engine to
cruise at slow RPMs? My engine seems to be the smoothest at 4800 to 5200 RPMs,
but it is also smooth at 3200,3300 RPMs.
>At 4000 RPMs the engine has a rough spot.
>My static RPM is around 5200. The prop is a 3 blade Warpdrive.
>
>Thanks
>Jack
>4-1200
>N170NH
>
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Short field T/O |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Michel,
I used to hold the brakes on old 582ed N194KF IV-1200, and raise tail level with
full throttle. I could keep it from going over on the nose. But when I tried
to let the brakes off gradually and keep the tail up, the tail always dropped.
I have a friend who could keep a Piper Vagabond tail up and proceed with
takeoff, and another with an Interstate L-6 with 150 or 180 horse motor who also
could do this.
So I think when you get proficient, you can try the hold brake and lift tail
maneuver.
bh
> This is where I am not following.
> First, I don't think I could do this trick with my model 3, the brakes won't
> hold at full throttle. But if they were:
> - if there is enough propwash on the elevator to lift the tail, why wouldn't
> be enough then to stop it going further when level? I agree that there is a
> moment developped around the wheels when the tail lifts. But considering the
> gyro effect of the prop, that pitch-down moment shouldn't be difficult to stop
> with the elevator, should it?
>
> Just wondering.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912ULS perfrmance? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
Jack
Sounds like the prop is set right for the engine. 5200 is right about what
the Warp Drive people recommend. Run the engine where it is smoothest. As
John mentions, Rotax says the design speed is 5000 to 5500. I've found that
3000 works for final approach in my light weight model III. 3200 may work
for your IV. Around large, busy airports my downwind, crosswind and final
approach speeds are 100mph right to the thresh hold. (That is my red line)
:
) At the cow pasture the speeds are more like 65, 60 and then 1.3 the
stall (at idle rpm). And yes I do stall to check my loaded stall speed
sometime before a shortfield landing. The stall can vary by 3 or 4 mph.
Jim Shumaker
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Seaford" <jseaford@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 912ULS perfrmance?
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jack Seaford" <jseaford@bellsouth.net>
>
> I am to the Kitfox world, I have a model 4-1200 with 912 ULS Rotax.
> I would like to know what you guys and gals cruise those engines at. Like
what RPM at cruise, and what RPM on down wind etc, and will it hurt the
engine to cruise at slow RPMs? My engine seems to be the smoothest at 4800
to 5200 RPMs, but it is also smooth at 3200,3300 RPMs.
> At 4000 RPMs the engine has a rough spot.
> My static RPM is around 5200. The prop is a 3 blade Warpdrive.
>
> Thanks
> Jack
> 4-1200
> N170NH
>
>
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Loctite question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Not quite true. There are liquid ounces also. Consider he 8 oz. in a cup.
There are approximately 30 cc in an ounce liquid.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Palamarek" <temco@telusplanet.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Loctite question
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ted Palamarek" <temco@telusplanet.net>
>
> Jay
>
> There really isn't a conversion between ml and oz, as one is
> volume and the other is weight. However, one ounce is equal
> to 28.35 grams and one cubic inch is equal to 16.29
> millilitres.
>
> Ted
>
> <<<<SNIP>>>>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Loctite question
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jay Fabian"
> <experimental208nd@comcast.net>
>
>
> The Loctite #609 on the www.wttool.com site has it at 10ml$10.45 and
> 50ml= $29.10. I do not know the conversion between ml
> and oz.
> Any way hope it helps.
> Jay
>
>
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Loctite question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ted Palamarek" <temco@telusplanet.net>
Lowell and the rest
You all are quite right however -- the volume displaced for
a fluid ounce is certainly different for water vis-a-vie
mercury. So really ounces are generally weight and ml are
volumes, as this is where you would normally find them
respectively in conversion tables. I think the fluid ounce
measure pertains to the volume/weight of water.
Ted DO NOT ARCHIVE
<<<<SNIP>>>>>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Loctite question
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
<lcfitt@inreach.com>
Not quite true. There are liquid ounces also. Consider he
8 oz. in a cup.
There are approximately 30 cc in an ounce liquid.
Lowell
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|