Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:33 AM - OT: A tale of tails (michel)
2. 03:48 AM - Re: 912ULS perfrmance? (Dave & Wendy Grosvenor)
3. 03:52 AM - Re: Re: Short field T/O (michel)
4. 04:37 AM - Rotax manuals (Larry)
5. 05:44 AM - gas/fuel tanks (Larry)
6. 06:08 AM - Re: gas/fuel tanks (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
7. 06:57 AM - Re: gas/fuel tanks (Mike Chaney)
8. 07:01 AM - Re: Loctite question (Lowell Fitt)
9. 07:24 AM - Re: gas/fuel tanks (Rick)
10. 07:54 AM - short field take off and landings (LeRoy staley)
11. 08:07 AM - Series 5 Battery Box (jeff.hays@aselia.com)
12. 08:39 AM - Re: short field take off and landings (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
13. 09:24 AM - Re: Compas sensor in wing tip (Scott McClintock)
14. 09:27 AM - Re: short field take off and landings (W Duke)
15. 09:34 AM - Re: Loctite question (Scott McClintock)
16. 09:42 AM - Re: gas/fuel tanks (Paul)
17. 10:09 AM - Re: gas/fuel tanks (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
18. 10:28 AM - Fuel Tanks (Larry)
19. 10:28 AM - Re: short field take off and landings (Clifford Begnaud)
20. 10:32 AM - Re: short field take off and landings (Clifford Begnaud)
21. 12:02 PM - Re: short field take off and landings (LeRoy staley)
22. 01:38 PM - Fw: Re: Fuel Resistant CoatingsEC-776EC-776SR #USLN-5VLMB3 (Larry)
23. 02:23 PM - Why Airplanes Are Better than Women (Kitfox)
24. 03:21 PM - Re: Fuel Tanks (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
25. 04:32 PM - Re: short field take off and landings (W Duke)
26. 04:33 PM - tailwheel (Bill Pleso)
27. 04:58 PM - Re: Loctite question (Herbert R Gottelt)
28. 05:38 PM - Re: short field take off and landings (Clifford Begnaud)
29. 05:42 PM - Re: Loctite question (Lowell Fitt)
30. 06:42 PM - Re: Loctite question (Jay Fabian)
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: | OT: A tale of tails |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel <michel@online.no>
>===== Original Message From "Kitfox" <Kitfox@chrisbates.co.uk> =====
>Try v1agra, I understand it works a treat!!
He, he! Here is a supposed true story, Chris:
At Marseilles-Marignand, two Aeropostale cargoships are waiting at holding.
The female tower controller says then: "Aeropostale 441, you're cleared to
take-off." To which the pilot answers:
- "Er, you probably mean, Aeropostale 512, which is ahead of me."
- "Sorry guys, I meant Aeropostale 512. As seen from here you all have the
same tail!"
... knowing that "la queue" (tail, in French) is the nickname of
you-know-what, you can understand why all the pilots on that frequency started
laughting their head off! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: 912ULS perfrmance? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave & Wendy Grosvenor" <dwg@iafrica.com>
Jack
I have almost the same configuration as you, 912 ULS with 3 blade warp drive
prop, also getting 5200 static. My aircraft is a Bushbaby, similar
configuration & size to a Kitfox 4. I have noticed the same thing. 4800
upwards the engine is smooth. Idle to around 3600 is smooth. But in the
low 4000's it feels rough. I know the engine is made to run at over
5000rpm, but it bugs me that I can't set the throttle setting I want,
especially when I am doing slow circles over something of interest. I keep
her going at 5000+ on downwind, then late downwind pull her back to 3600 or
so.
Do you have a slipper clutch? I don't. I have a friend on our airfield
with a 912 ULS with a slipper clutch and it runs much smoother. When I
phoned the South African agents, they said it is essential to put a slipper
clutch into the 912S for smoother running and longer gearbox life.
Cheers
Dave
Durban, South Africa
----- 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 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: | Re: Short field T/O |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel <michel@online.no>
Thanks Torgeir and Bruce. You confirm one thing: My brakes are too soft.
After runup, when I am at holding, I usually very briefly push full throttle,
just to check that the engine is reeving up nicely. But I can't stay
motionless, the plane moves a bit forward. Also: I can't lock my wheels and
apply full throttle. Otherwise I feel the brakes more than sufficient to do
the usual taxi work.
>to let the brakes off gradually and keep the tail up, the tail always
dropped.
Yes, looking at the video of the Super Cub, the only elevator motion I can see
is when he releases the brakes: stick forward to prevent the tail to drop,
then level again.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Larry <Lmar@direcway.com>
Go to http://leadingedgeairfoils.com/ They have links to download all the manuals for free.
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Larry <Lmar@direcway.com>
The availability of pure unleaded autogas without any blend of ethanol in it is
increasingly difficult to find. My MK1V,(serial 1328, about '90) warns against
the use of fuels containing ethanol due to the fuel destroying the epoxy in
the tanks. I tested some fiberglass from a small piece that I cut off a nav
light housing that the builder did not use. Sure enough, after a weekend in
an ethanol blend, the fiberglass was getting soft. For the time being, I can
get "real" gas from the farm supplier, but I don't know for how long. I thought
it might behoove me to explore possibilities to prevent the destruction of
the tanks. I wrote to 3M about the product. ( below, along with their response.)
Does anyone have experience with this, or can come up with another solution
to the problem with minimum rebuilding and down time?
Subject = Fuel Resistant CoatingsEC-776EC-776SR
Message = Ref: Fuel Resistant Coatings EC-776 EC-776SR
Would these coatings be suitable to use in a fiberglass fuel tank to seal
and protect the fiberglass expoy from being destroyed by ethonal in todays
gasoline? Could you suggest a product that may be suitable.
Thank you,
Larry
Thanks for contacting 3M. You got it! EC-776 would be an excellent choice
for your application. Feel confident in using it.
If you have further questions or need more information, I can be reached
directly at 1-800-285-3215, ext. 44.
Regards,
Maria Berglund
3M Industrial Markets
Technical Support Center
1-800-362-3550
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: gas/fuel tanks |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
Would these coatings be suitable to use in a fiberglass fuel tank to seal
and protect the fiberglass expoy from being destroyed by ethonal in todays
gasoline? Could you suggest a product that may be suitable.
Thank you,
Larry
Larry,
Our tanks are supposed to be fabricated from the same material that
underground fuel tanks at gas stations are made off. However, there has been
discussions over the years that SS used different materials at different times.
Never have been able to get all that straight as to what years different tanks
were made. If, I say If, alcohol is destroying a fiberglass tank then no
sloshing material of any kind is going to protect them. I say that because IMO,
you can't slosh a tank good enough to cover every little corner and crack due
the the large size of the tank and the baffles.
IMHO, if alcohol was destroying my tank i'd trash the tank and go to
something else all together. When I cut my tanks open, I put a very thin coat
of
West Epoxy system on every square inch of my tanks. I wouldn't even trust
that method if alcohol was destroying the origional fiberglass material.
Don Smythe
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mike Chaney <mdps_mc@SWOCA.NET>
What is EC-776?
Mike Chaney
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Larry
Subject: Kitfox-List: gas/fuel tanks
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Larry <Lmar@direcway.com>
The availability of pure unleaded autogas without any blend of ethanol in it
is increasingly difficult to find. My MK1V,(serial 1328, about '90) warns
against the use of fuels containing ethanol due to the fuel destroying the
epoxy in the tanks. I tested some fiberglass from a small piece that I cut
off a nav light housing that the builder did not use. Sure enough, after a
weekend in an ethanol blend, the fiberglass was getting soft. For the time
being, I can get "real" gas from the farm supplier, but I don't know for how
long. I thought it might behoove me to explore possibilities to prevent the
destruction of the tanks. I wrote to 3M about the product. ( below, along
with their response.) Does anyone have experience with this, or can come up
with another solution to the problem with minimum rebuilding and down time?
Subject = Fuel Resistant CoatingsEC-776EC-776SR
Message = Ref: Fuel Resistant Coatings EC-776 EC-776SR
Would these coatings be suitable to use in a fiberglass fuel tank to seal
and protect the fiberglass expoy from being destroyed by ethonal in todays
gasoline? Could you suggest a product that may be suitable.
Thank you,
Larry
Thanks for contacting 3M. You got it! EC-776 would be an excellent choice
for your application. Feel confident in using it.
If you have further questions or need more information, I can be reached
directly at 1-800-285-3215, ext. 44.
Regards,
Maria Berglund
3M Industrial Markets
Technical Support Center
1-800-362-3550
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: | Re: Loctite question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Respectfully disagree.
The milliliter derives from the cubic centimeter which is derived from an
ancient determination of the circumference of the earth - I think. The
cubic centimeter is a measure of physical volume, but the milliliter is a
measure of fluid volume derived from one cubic centimeter of water - one ml
of mercury would certainly weigh more than one ml of water, however the
fluid displacement would be identical.
Ounces can be volume or weight. By definition there are 16 avoirdupois
ounces in a pound of any substance. Precious metals - gold - are measured
in Troy ounces - 12 Troy ounces in a pound and 20 Pennyweight in a Troy
ounce.
Fluid ounces are an entirely different animal and are not derived from
ounces of weight. Check a pharmaceutical book like the Physician's desk
reference and the conversion tables are all there. When measuring dosage
there are about three methods used: teaspoon - about 5 ml or cc., ounces -
about 30 ml or cc and cc.
Also check the bottle the next time you buy a liter of a soft drink. The
volume will be given on both ounces and ml. Also water weighs aobut 7 lbs
per gallon and there are 128 fluid ounces in a gallon giving 128 ounces in 7
lbs. It doesn't work out that way.
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>
>
> 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
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
If we could find out what the tanks are coated with at the gas stations that
would be the trick. Those are constant long term storage tanks. I will stop
by a local station doing the replacements and try to get the manufacturer of
the tanks. I just use 100LL because of the high octane numbers since I have
a turbo and the uncoated tanks.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mike Chaney
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: gas/fuel tanks
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mike Chaney <mdps_mc@SWOCA.NET>
What is EC-776?
Mike Chaney
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Larry
Subject: Kitfox-List: gas/fuel tanks
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Larry <Lmar@direcway.com>
The availability of pure unleaded autogas without any blend of ethanol in it
is increasingly difficult to find. My MK1V,(serial 1328, about '90) warns
against the use of fuels containing ethanol due to the fuel destroying the
epoxy in the tanks. I tested some fiberglass from a small piece that I cut
off a nav light housing that the builder did not use. Sure enough, after a
weekend in an ethanol blend, the fiberglass was getting soft. For the time
being, I can get "real" gas from the farm supplier, but I don't know for how
long. I thought it might behoove me to explore possibilities to prevent the
destruction of the tanks. I wrote to 3M about the product. ( below, along
with their response.) Does anyone have experience with this, or can come up
with another solution to the problem with minimum rebuilding and down time?
Subject = Fuel Resistant CoatingsEC-776EC-776SR
Message = Ref: Fuel Resistant Coatings EC-776 EC-776SR
Would these coatings be suitable to use in a fiberglass fuel tank to seal
and protect the fiberglass expoy from being destroyed by ethonal in todays
gasoline? Could you suggest a product that may be suitable.
Thank you,
Larry
Thanks for contacting 3M. You got it! EC-776 would be an excellent choice
for your application. Feel confident in using it.
If you have further questions or need more information, I can be reached
directly at 1-800-285-3215, ext. 44.
Regards,
Maria Berglund
3M Industrial Markets
Technical Support Center
1-800-362-3550
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: | short field take off and landings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: LeRoy staley <itis50@yahoo.com>
I have put in an airstrip on my property that is 1200
ft by 60. The only obstruction is a 4 ft fence at both
ends. There is also a displaced threshold on 27 about
50 ft and 120 ft on 09. Have had the Kitfox 5 in there
once and there was no problem landing or taking off by
myself on a warm day. How do these numbers sound to
the other Kitfox fliers. The 5 does stall at a higher
number than a 4.
__________________________________
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: | Series 5 Battery Box |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Hi -
Can anybody out there give me the battery box dimensions for the
IO-240B battery box in a series 5? I'm at work at don't have the
numbers handy.
Thanks Much,
Jeff Hays
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 take off and landings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
what do you do with the other 750 feet?
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: LeRoy staley <itis50@yahoo.com>
>
> I have put in an airstrip on my property that is 1200
> ft by 60. The only obstruction is a 4 ft fence at both
> ends. There is also a displaced threshold on 27 about
> 50 ft and 120 ft on 09. Have had the Kitfox 5 in there
> once and there was no problem landing or taking off by
> myself on a warm day. How do these numbers sound to
> the other Kitfox fliers. The 5 does stall at a higher
> number than a 4.
>
> __________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Compas sensor in wing tip |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock <scott_mcclintock@dot.state.ak.us>
Torgeir,
Thanks for expanding on what I had mentioned to Jeff last week.
I have been working at our local FSS part-time. Part of my duties has been to
become more acquainted with the F.A.R.'s and A.I.M.'s.
I really did not want to get into a "pissing match" on this subject, but I knew
Jeff (others) were incorrect. Thanks for taking the time to dig a little deeper.
I just completed my annual inspection and re-calibrated my compass as part
of the inspection.
Scott
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Torgeir Mortensen wrote:
> --> 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 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 take off and landings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke <n981ms@yahoo.com>
I have 1600'x60' with trees on one end. I can easily land over the trees moderately
loaded if wind favors.
Saturday it was in the 40s and at a TO weight of about 1450 I was off grass in
500 feet. S6 IO240.
Maxwell Duke
kerrjohna@comcast.net wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
what do you do with the other 750 feet?
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: LeRoy staley
>
> I have put in an airstrip on my property that is 1200
> ft by 60. The only obstruction is a 4 ft fence at both
> ends. There is also a displaced threshold on 27 about
> 50 ft and 120 ft on 09. Have had the Kitfox 5 in there
> once and there was no problem landing or taking off by
> myself on a warm day. How do these numbers sound to
> the other Kitfox fliers. The 5 does stall at a higher
> number than a 4.
>
> __________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
Maxwell Duke
S6/IO240/Phase II Flight Testing
---------------------------------
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: Loctite question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock <scott_mcclintock@dot.state.ak.us>
Aw, come on now! Doesn't anybody look at the label of the beer they drink?
Checking out the ol' "Pocket Ref" it works out like this:
To covert milliliters (ml) to ounces (US, flu.) multiply ml X 0.0338
Going the other way (oz. -> liter) multiply oz X 0.02957
math 101
Scott
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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.
> Jay
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul <pwilson@climber.org>
The Aflac (spelling) resin used in the late model tanks is the resin. It is not
used as a coating. The comment by Don is valid sloshing is not as good as using
the correct resin the first place.
Confirm the resin by calling Skystar.
Paul
At 7:23 AM -0800 1/28/04, Rick wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
>
>If we could find out what the tanks are coated with at the gas stations that
>would be the trick. Those are constant long term storage tanks. I will stop
>by a local station doing the replacements and try to get the manufacturer of
>the tanks. I just use 100LL because of the high octane numbers since I have
>a turbo and the uncoated tanks.
>
>Rick
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mike Chaney
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com.tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06
>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: gas/fuel tanks
>
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mike Chaney <mdps_mc@SWOCA.NET>
>
>What is EC-776?
>Mike Chaney
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Larry
>To: Kitfox-List@matronics.com
>Subject: Kitfox-List: gas/fuel tanks
>
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Larry <Lmar@direcway.com>
>
>The availability of pure unleaded autogas without any blend of ethanol in it
>is increasingly difficult to find. My MK1V,(serial 1328, about '90) warns
>against the use of fuels containing ethanol due to the fuel destroying the
>epoxy in the tanks. I tested some fiberglass from a small piece that I cut
>off a nav light housing that the builder did not use. Sure enough, after a
>weekend in an ethanol blend, the fiberglass was getting soft. For the time
>being, I can get "real" gas from the farm supplier, but I don't know for how
>long. I thought it might behoove me to explore possibilities to prevent the
>destruction of the tanks. I wrote to 3M about the product. ( below, along
>with their response.) Does anyone have experience with this, or can come up
>with another solution to the problem with minimum rebuilding and down time?
>
>Subject = Fuel Resistant CoatingsEC-776EC-776SR
>
>Message = Ref: Fuel Resistant Coatings EC-776 EC-776SR
>
>Would these coatings be suitable to use in a fiberglass fuel tank to seal
>and protect the fiberglass expoy from being destroyed by ethonal in todays
>gasoline? Could you suggest a product that may be suitable.
>
>Thank you,
>Larry
>
>
>Thanks for contacting 3M. You got it! EC-776 would be an excellent choice
>for your application. Feel confident in using it.
>
>If you have further questions or need more information, I can be reached
>directly at 1-800-285-3215, ext. 44.
>Regards,
>Maria Berglund
>3M Industrial Markets
>Technical Support Center
>1-800-362-3550
--
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: | Re: gas/fuel tanks |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
The Aflac (spelling) resin used in the late model tanks is the resin. It is
not used as a coating. The comment by Don is valid sloshing is not as good as
using the correct resin the first place.
Confirm the resin by calling Skystar.
Paul
Amen Paul, I was just about to say something close. I doubt very seriously
if gas station tanks would rely on a coating. It's the base material that
protects from the attack of Alcohol. I remember when several people quoted the
"NEW IMPROVED ALCOHOL RESISTANT KREEME" was to protect the tanks from
Alchol....It was designed to protect "ITSELF" from dissolving in Alcohol.
Don Smythe
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Larry <Lmar@direcway.com>
Before I panic everyone, I have an Avid with the kit purchased in 89-90ish time
frame. My tank is not ruined yet, but I am trying to anticipate a solution.
I do know that Avid's resin at that time does not stand up to ethanol, by the
warning in the book, and by trial with a different piece of the kit.
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: short field take off and landings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Leroy,
What field elevation?
cliff
do not archive
>
> I have put in an airstrip on my property that is 1200
> ft by 60. The only obstruction is a 4 ft fence at both
> ends. There is also a displaced threshold on 27 about
> 50 ft and 120 ft on 09. Have had the Kitfox 5 in there
> once and there was no problem landing or taking off by
> myself on a warm day. How do these numbers sound to
> the other Kitfox fliers. The 5 does stall at a higher
> number than a 4.
>
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: short field take off and landings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Maxwell,
What's your field elevation? What prop do you use?
Thanks,
Cliff
do not archive
>
> I have 1600'x60' with trees on one end. I can easily land over the trees
moderately loaded if wind favors.
> Saturday it was in the 40s and at a TO weight of about 1450 I was off
grass in 500 feet. S6 IO240.
>
> Maxwell Duke
> > >
> >
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: | Re: short field take off and landings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: LeRoy staley <itis50@yahoo.com>
Cliff,
982 msl, plane has a subaru ea81 but no cap prop.leroy
--- Clifford Begnaud <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford
> Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>
> Leroy,
> What field elevation?
> cliff
> do not archive
>
> >
> > I have put in an airstrip on my property that is
> 1200
> > ft by 60. The only obstruction is a 4 ft fence at
> both
> > ends. There is also a displaced threshold on 27
> about
> > 50 ft and 120 ft on 09. Have had the Kitfox 5 in
> there
> > once and there was no problem landing or taking
> off by
> > myself on a warm day. How do these numbers sound
> to
> > the other Kitfox fliers. The 5 does stall at a
> higher
> > number than a 4.
> >
>
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/chat
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
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: Fw: Re: Fuel Resistant CoatingsEC-776EC-776SR #USLN-5VLMB3 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Larry <Lmar@direcway.com>
Listee's,
Sorry about this, but it seems that 3M is revising it's advice with regards
to this sealant. It is NOT to be used inside fuel tanks! I don't know why you
would want to put it on the outside? See original contacts with 3M.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: itsd@3m.com
Subject: Re: Re: Fuel Resistant CoatingsEC-776EC-776SR #USLN-5VLMB3
Thanks for contacting 3M. If you are putting it on the outside of the
tank, the 776 will be resistant to oil, gasoline, aromatic fuels, and
hydrocarbon fluid, and salt water. It is not recommended for use with
alcohol containing fuels, or jet fuel containing microbial organisms. I
believe ethonol would be considered "alcohol containing fuel" so I would
suppose you will need to consider this when using the 776. Hope that
helps.
If you have further questions or need more information, I can be reached
directly at 1-800-285-3215, ext. 44.
Regards,
Maria Berglund
3M Industrial Markets
Technical Support Center
1-800-362-3550
-----------Original Message Follows------------
Maria,
Thanks for your response. Could you please verify that this product
would be suitable in tanks containing ethanol gasoline? I thought a supplier
had indicated against it. Perhaps he is not up to date with your product.
Thanks again,
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: itsd@3m.com
Subject: Re: Fuel Resistant CoatingsEC-776EC-776SR #USLN-5VLMB3
Thanks for contacting 3M. You got it! EC-776 would be an excellent
choice
for your application. Feel confident in using it.
If you have further questions or need more information, I can be reached
directly at 1-800-285-3215, ext. 44.
Regards,
Maria Berglund
3M Industrial Markets
Technical Support Center
1-800-362-3550
-----------Original Message Follows------------
Subject = Fuel Resistant CoatingsEC-776EC-776SR
Message = Ref: Fuel Resistant Coatings EC-776 EC-776SR
Would these coatings be suitable to use in a fiberglass fuel tank to seal
and
protect the fiberglass expoy from being destroyed by ethonal in todays
gasoline? Could you suggest a product that may be suitable.
Thank you,
Larry
Customer Name = Larry Martin
Recipient = innovation@mmm.com
Initial URL = http://3m.com/
address1 address2
city Product = Adhesives/Glue
stateProv Types = Other
zipCode
If there is a need to reply to this response, please leave the subject
line
intact to assure correct routing.
We value your feedback on this email response experience. Please take a
moment to complete these 10 questions. Your responses will let us know
whether we are serving you well and how we may improve. Do not use this
survey to submit questions. We cannot reply to comments/questions from
this
survey form. If you have a question, please repy to this email response.
Thank you for your continued support of 3M.
Click here to complete the survey:
http://surveys.3m.com/IRSFeedback/page1.htm?BU=451607560216E64602144686563796675
637XXBU18&ID=D41627961602B4E20224562776C657E646XXID17
If there is a need to reply to this response, please leave the subject line
intact to assure correct routing.
We value your feedback on this email response experience. Please take a
moment to complete these 10 questions. Your responses will let us know
whether we are serving you well and how we may improve. Do not use this
survey to submit questions. We cannot reply to comments/questions from this
survey form. If you have a question, please repy to this email response.
Thank you for your continued support of 3M.
Click here to complete the survey:
http://surveys.3m.com/IRSFeedback/page1.htm?BU=451607560216E64602144686563796675637XXBU18&ID=D41627961602B4E20224562776C657E646XXID17
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: | Why Airplanes Are Better than Women |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kitfox" <Kitfox@chrisbates.co.uk>
Michel, I'm still chuckling about your response..lol...
thought you might appreciate this..
Chris
Why Airplanes Are Better than Women
An airplane will kill you quick . . . a woman takes her time.
Airplanes like to do it inverted.
Airplanes can be turned on by a flick of a switch.
An airplane does not get mad if you 'touch and go.'
An airplane does not object to a pre-flight inspection.
Airplanes come with manuals.
Airplanes have strict weight and balance limits.
You can fly an airplane any time of the month.
Airplanes don't have parents.
Airplanes don't whine unless something is really wrong.
Airplanes don't care about how many other airplanes you have flown.
When flying, you and your airplane both arrive at the same time.
Airplanes don't mind if you look at other airplanes, or if you buy
airplane magazines.
If your airplane is too loose, you can tighten it.
It's always OK to use tie downs on your airplane.
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
Before I panic everyone, I have an Avid with the kit purchased in 89-90ish
time frame. My tank is not ruined yet, but I am trying to anticipate a
solution. I do
What is the panic? You have an Avid not a Kitfox. I'm sure that Avid along
with SS used many different fabricators for their tanks. There should be no
panic along this line. Know what you've got and act accordingly. IMHO.
Don Smythe
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: short field take off and landings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke <n981ms@yahoo.com>
Cliff,
The field elevation was 530msl. I meant to mention that in the post. My prop
is the standard "compromise" Sensenich. I got it through Skystar. The numbers
you posted the other day look very familiar. My paperwork on the prop is
at the hangar so I cannot confirm exactly.
Maxwell
Clifford Begnaud <shoeless@barefootpilot.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
Maxwell,
What's your field elevation? What prop do you use?
Thanks,
Cliff
do not archive
>
> I have 1600'x60' with trees on one end. I can easily land over the trees
moderately loaded if wind favors.
> Saturday it was in the 40s and at a TO weight of about 1450 I was off
grass in 500 feet. S6 IO240.
>
> Maxwell Duke
> > >
> >
---------------------------------
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bill Pleso" <bill77@cox.net>
To all,
Recently there was some discussion about the techniques involved in flying
tailwheel vs. tricycle (along with some very strong preferences). I don't have
my tailwheel endorsment (yet), but thought I would share some advice my flight
instructor gave me a few years ago when I was getting my private ticket. He
told me that aside from a few differences in technique, that mostly a tailwheel
aircraft forced you to fly the way you should with any plane. To help me
acquire the "feel for the plane" he said was necessary to properly take off and
land a tailwheel, he had me do touch-n-goes (LOTS of them) without letting the
nose wheel touch the ground. It takes a little finess, but getting that "feel"
made my landings much smoother and will probably help me transition to tailwheel.
I still practice this from time to time.
Bill Pleso
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: Loctite question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Herbert R Gottelt <gofalke@sbcglobal.net>
Lowell,
One gal of water = 8.333 lbs, not 7.
One liter = 1000 ml = 1000qcm.
Shoot me if I am wrong :-)
Herbert Gottelt
Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@inreach.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
Respectfully disagree.
The milliliter derives from the cubic centimeter which is derived from an
ancient determination of the circumference of the earth - I think. The
cubic centimeter is a measure of physical volume, but the milliliter is a
measure of fluid volume derived from one cubic centimeter of water - one ml
of mercury would certainly weigh more than one ml of water, however the
fluid displacement would be identical.
Ounces can be volume or weight. By definition there are 16 avoirdupois
ounces in a pound of any substance. Precious metals - gold - are measured
in Troy ounces - 12 Troy ounces in a pound and 20 Pennyweight in a Troy
ounce.
Fluid ounces are an entirely different animal and are not derived from
ounces of weight. Check a pharmaceutical book like the Physician's desk
reference and the conversion tables are all there. When measuring dosage
there are about three methods used: teaspoon - about 5 ml or cc., ounces -
about 30 ml or cc and cc.
Also check the bottle the next time you buy a liter of a soft drink. The
volume will be given on both ounces and ml. Also water weighs aobut 7 lbs
per gallon and there are 128 fluid ounces in a gallon giving 128 ounces in 7
lbs. It doesn't work out that way.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Palamarek"
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Loctite question
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ted Palamarek"
>
> 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
>
> <<<>>>>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Loctite question
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 take off and landings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Maxwell,
I think that with a "climb prop" you would get off the ground quite a bit
sooner.
Of course you will burn more gas in cruise.
Cliff
>
> Cliff,
> The field elevation was 530msl. I meant to mention that in the post.
My prop is the standard "compromise" Sensenich. I got it through Skystar.
The numbers you posted the other day look very familiar. My paperwork on
the prop is at the hangar so I cannot confirm exactly.
>
> Maxwell
>
> Clifford Begnaud <shoeless@barefootpilot.com> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
>
> Maxwell,
> What's your field elevation? What prop do you use?
> Thanks,
> Cliff
> do not archive
>
> >
> > I have 1600'x60' with trees on one end. I can easily land over the trees
> moderately loaded if wind favors.
> > Saturday it was in the 40s and at a TO weight of about 1450 I was off
> grass in 500 feet. S6 IO240.
> >
> > Maxwell Duke
> > > >
> > >
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
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: Loctite question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
No shot's from me, I don't know about the .333, but I should have used the
about 8 lbs. per gallon figure.
Thanks,
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Herbert R Gottelt" <gofalke@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Loctite question
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Herbert R Gottelt
<gofalke@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Lowell,
> One gal of water = 8.333 lbs, not 7.
> One liter = 1000 ml = 1000qcm.
> Shoot me if I am wrong :-)
> Herbert Gottelt
>
> Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@inreach.com> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
>
> Respectfully disagree.
>
> The milliliter derives from the cubic centimeter which is derived from an
> ancient determination of the circumference of the earth - I think. The
> cubic centimeter is a measure of physical volume, but the milliliter is a
> measure of fluid volume derived from one cubic centimeter of water - one
ml
> of mercury would certainly weigh more than one ml of water, however the
> fluid displacement would be identical.
>
> Ounces can be volume or weight. By definition there are 16 avoirdupois
> ounces in a pound of any substance. Precious metals - gold - are measured
> in Troy ounces - 12 Troy ounces in a pound and 20 Pennyweight in a Troy
> ounce.
>
> Fluid ounces are an entirely different animal and are not derived from
> ounces of weight. Check a pharmaceutical book like the Physician's desk
> reference and the conversion tables are all there. When measuring dosage
> there are about three methods used: teaspoon - about 5 ml or cc., ounces -
> about 30 ml or cc and cc.
>
> Also check the bottle the next time you buy a liter of a soft drink. The
> volume will be given on both ounces and ml. Also water weighs aobut 7 lbs
> per gallon and there are 128 fluid ounces in a gallon giving 128 ounces in
7
> lbs. It doesn't work out that way.
>
> Lowell
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ted Palamarek"
> To:
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Loctite question
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ted Palamarek"
> >
> > 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
> >
> > <<<>>>>
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Loctite question
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
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: Loctite question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jay Fabian" <experimental208nd@comcast.net>
So 10 ML x .0338= .338 OZs for $10.45 , and 50 ML x .0338 = 1.69 OZs
for $29.10.
Now that makes more sense.
Now Is LEAF, or Lockwood cheaper at these conversions??
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott McClintock" <scott_mcclintock@dot.state.ak.us>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Loctite question
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock
<scott_mcclintock@dot.state.ak.us>
>
> Aw, come on now! Doesn't anybody look at the label of the beer they drink?
> Checking out the ol' "Pocket Ref" it works out like this:
> To covert milliliters (ml) to ounces (US, flu.) multiply ml X 0.0338
> Going the other way (oz. -> liter) multiply oz X 0.02957
> math 101
> Scott
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
> > >
> > --> 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
> >
>
>
>
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! --
|