Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:59 AM - VACATION (gene m. calkins)
2. 06:10 AM - Re: short field take off and landings (W Duke)
3. 07:13 AM - Re: VACATION - Wimp! (jeff.hays@aselia.com)
4. 07:25 AM - Re: VACATION - Wimp! (Ray Kurian)
5. 07:39 AM - Re: short field take off and landings (Clifford Begnaud)
6. 08:28 AM - Re: VACATION (Don Pearsall)
7. 09:30 AM - Re: tailwheel (Vic Jacko)
8. 09:57 AM - Re: VACATION - Wimp! (Scott McClintock)
9. 10:05 AM - Re: tailwheel (RiteAngle3@aol.com)
10. 10:05 AM - Re: VACATION - Wimp! (jeff.hays@aselia.com)
11. 10:10 AM - Re: Loctite question (martin dovey)
12. 11:29 AM - Re: Rotax engine problem (Jeff Thomas)
13. 11:37 AM - Re: 912S Starter (Randy Daughenbaugh)
14. 12:07 PM - Re: VACATION - Wimp! (Jay Fabian)
15. 12:20 PM - Re: Re: Rotax engine problem (Michel Verheughe)
16. 12:21 PM - Re: Why Airplanes Are Better than Women (Michel Verheughe)
17. 12:49 PM - Re: Re: Rotax engine problem (Bob Robertson)
18. 01:05 PM - Fw: Re: Rotax engine problem (Peter Brookes)
19. 01:38 PM - Re: Re: Rotax engine problem (Bob Robertson)
20. 02:57 PM - Re: Re: Rotax engine problem (Michel Verheughe)
21. 05:37 PM - Cruise Speeds & clean up mods (Paul Seehafer)
22. 05:37 PM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. (Paul Seehafer)
23. 06:19 PM - Re: Loctite question - heavy water (Randy Daughenbaugh)
24. 07:22 PM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. (Allan Aaron)
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "gene m. calkins" <calkinsgm@charter.net>
LIST It is -6 degrees this morning and we are going south to find some warmer
weather. Keep up the good work and stay warm, will be back about the 1st.
of April... Gene N99GC
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: short field take off and landings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke <n981ms@yahoo.com>
Cliff,
Considering "climb prop" vs "compromise prop". I thought at the same power
setting (I use 2550 rpm) I would just go slower and burn about the same fuel
with the "climb prop".
Maxwell
Clifford Begnaud <shoeless@barefootpilot.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
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 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
> > > >
> > >
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
Maxwell Duke
S6/IO240/Phase II Flight Testing
---------------------------------
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: | VACATION - Wimp! |
PRIORITY_NO_NAME
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Wimp! I walked 30 minutes outside in it going to work! Plus I plan to
fly this weekend. With wind chill it's only around -20. I bet the guys
in Alaska are laughing!
Original Message:
-----------------
From: gene m. calkins calkinsgm@charter.net
Subject: Kitfox-List: VACATION
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "gene m. calkins" <calkinsgm@charter.net>
LIST It is -6 degrees this morning and we are going south to find some
warmer weather. Keep up the good work and stay warm, will be back about
the 1st. of April... Gene N99GC
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: | Re: VACATION - Wimp! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ray Kurian" <raykurian@earthlink.net>
Was it uphill against the wind?
Ray Kurian
raykurian@earthlink.net
Sonex #612
----- Original Message -----
From: <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: VACATION - Wimp!
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com"
<jeff.hays@aselia.com>
>
>
> Wimp! I walked 30 minutes outside in it going to work! Plus I plan to
> fly this weekend. With wind chill it's only around -20. I bet the guys
> in Alaska are laughing!
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: gene m. calkins calkinsgm@charter.net
> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 06:58:25 -0600
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: VACATION
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "gene m. calkins"
<calkinsgm@charter.net>
>
> LIST It is -6 degrees this morning and we are going south to find some
> warmer weather. Keep up the good work and stay warm, will be back about
> the 1st. of April... Gene N99GC
>
>
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 take off and landings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
True, I meant burn more fuel for same speed.
Cliff
do not archive
>
> Cliff,
> Considering "climb prop" vs "compromise prop". I thought at the same
power setting (I use 2550 rpm) I would just go slower and burn about the
same fuel with the "climb prop".
>
> Maxwell
>
> Clifford Begnaud <shoeless@barefootpilot.com> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
>
>
> 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 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
>
>
> Maxwell Duke
> S6/IO240/Phase II Flight Testing
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall@comcast.net>
Eight weeks vacation???! Gene, I want to have YOUR job.
Don (took 3 days off last year) Pearsall
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: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Bill, my instructor did the same to me! I made a lot of full stall
landings with full flaps and keep the nose off the ground most of the time.
He called this a "soft field landing" technique. It will provide you with
the necessary over the cowl look at nothing which is what you see with a
tailwheel airplane most of the tome when taking off and landing if you do
full stall or nose high flying. Very good practice I would recommend you
use as much as you can.
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Pleso" <bill77@cox.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: tailwheel
> --> 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 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: VACATION - Wimp! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock <scott_mcclintock@dot.state.ak.us>
Ha, Ha, Ha!
You guys just crack me up. "-6 degrees" why that's t-shirt weather!
Forecast for AKZ211 - Southern Seward Peninsula Coast
Current Conditions: -18 F Pressure: 29.86" rising
500 AM AST THU JAN 29 2004
Today... Sunny. Highs 25 below to 5 above. Northeast winds to
20
mph. Gusting to 45 mph
Tonight... Mostly clear. Lows zero to 30 below. Local northeast
winds 15 to 35 mph. Winds chills to 40
below.
Friday... Clear. Highs 25 below to 5 above. Northeast winds 10
to
20 mph.
Friday Night... Clear...breezy. Lows zero to 30 below. Northeast
winds 15 to 25 mph. Wind chill near 55
below.
Scott in beautiful (tepid) Nome
"jeff.hays@aselia.com" wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
>
> Wimp! I walked 30 minutes outside in it going to work! Plus I plan to
> fly this weekend. With wind chill it's only around -20. I bet the guys
> in Alaska are laughing!
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: gene m. calkins calkinsgm@charter.net
> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 06:58:25 -0600
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: VACATION
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "gene m. calkins" <calkinsgm@charter.net>
>
> LIST It is -6 degrees this morning and we are going south to find some
> warmer weather. Keep up the good work and stay warm, will be back about
> the 1st. of April... Gene N99GC
>
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: RiteAngle3@aol.com
In a message dated 1/29/04 9:32:13 AM Pacific Standard Time,
vicwj@earthlink.net writes:
Bill, my instructor did the same to me! I made a lot of full stall
landings with full flaps and keep the nose off the ground most of the time.
He called this a "soft field landing" technique. It will provide you with
the necessary over the cowl look at nothing which is what you see with a
tailwheel airplane most of the tome when taking off and landing if you do
full stall or nose high flying. Very good practice I would recommend you
use as much as you can.
>>>Taught similar way for over 40 years and continue to do so! If proper
rudder control is taught in first few lessons there is no mystery, just enhancing
what one already knows. "Straight down centerline and stick in your belly"
within limitations of course :-)
Elbie
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: VACATION - Wimp! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Yes! A steep hill too!!!
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Ray Kurian raykurian@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: VACATION - Wimp!
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ray Kurian" <raykurian@earthlink.net>
Was it uphill against the wind?
Ray Kurian
raykurian@earthlink.net
Sonex #612
----- Original Message -----
From: <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: VACATION - Wimp!
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com"
<jeff.hays@aselia.com>
>
>
> Wimp! I walked 30 minutes outside in it going to work! Plus I plan to
> fly this weekend. With wind chill it's only around -20. I bet the guys
> in Alaska are laughing!
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: gene m. calkins calkinsgm@charter.net
> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 06:58:25 -0600
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: VACATION
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "gene m. calkins"
<calkinsgm@charter.net>
>
> LIST It is -6 degrees this morning and we are going south to find some
> warmer weather. Keep up the good work and stay warm, will be back about
> the 1st. of April... Gene N99GC
>
>
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: Loctite question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "martin dovey" <kitfox.england@ntlworld.com>
Ah, but a gallon of water in England weighs 10lbs!
----- 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
> >
> >
>
>
=========
>
=========
>
=========
http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list
>
=========
>
>
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: Rotax engine problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Thomas" <jeffthomas@ntlworld.com>
Guys, I could use some advice regarding an engine problem I am
experiencing:-
I fly a Kitfox III with a Rotax 582 oil injection engine. Up until I put
it back in the hanger after my last flight about 10 days ago no problems. On
Tuesday of this week all seemed normal until I began my take off run. When
full power is applied for take off I expect to see 5800 rpm which in the
first few seconds of the take off run (as the aircraft accelerates and the
prop unloads) increases to about 6200 rpm.
On this occasion the revs initially increased to 5800 and as the take of
run began they dropped back to about 5200 - 5400 rpm so the take off was
aborted! Subsequent ground runs showed this to be repeated with the revs
fluctuating from around 5000 to 5500 rpm while full power was maintained. At
all times the engine started easily enough and appeared to run smoothly with
no sign of miss firing.
Initial thoughts were that it might be a partial fuel restriction. Fuel
levels in the float bowls seemed ok, so fuel pipes were removed and fuel
flow checked, gascolator fuel filter cleaned, fuel pump removed and stripped
including removing and examining the pulse pipe, carburettors removed and
jets checked. No obvious problem was found and when the engine was run again
no improvement was forthcoming. Surprise,surprise....
Next the head and barrels were removed for examination and subsequent
de-coke. Though it was 120 hours since last strip down the engine was in a
reasonable state although the bottom rings were definitely sticking when
examined. After reassembly a new set of plugs were fitted for good luck! At
the same time as the decoke the resistance was measured of the coils,
ignition triggers and stator... all were within the Rotax specs. Subsequent
engine run up today gave an initial 5800 rpm followed almost immediately by
a drop to a steady 5000 - 5200 rpm.
Finally, I noticed today that the water temp was higher than usual.
Normally in flight (with radiator partly blanked off for this time of year
in England) I expect to see about 70 *C and perhaps up to 80*C on full power
climb. Today the temps eventually got up to just under 100*c when I finally
shut down.... but put this down to prolonged running at full power while
tied down on the ground, therefore not getting the normal airflow through
the radiator that would happen in flight. Am I right to assume that or could
I be looking at a sticking thermostat.... would that account for the rev
drop I am experiencing?
Sorry to be so long winded in describing what I have been doing but I want
you to have the full info. So now over to you lot..... who has experienced
something similar and how did you cure it? What should I be doing next?
Regards
Jeff
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Len,
I had to send my motor mount back to Skystar so they could modify it for
room for the larger starter. I do have the Series 7 firewall forward
with the longer motor mount, so I don't know what the issues are with
the Series 5 motor mount.
I understand that all of the new Series 7 firewall forward kits for the
912/914 are designed for the larger starter.
Randy Series 5/7 912S
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Len
Shorethose
Subject: Kitfox-List: 912S Starter
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Len Shorethose"
<TooLowTerrain@comcast.net>
Hello List,
I was just wondering if anyone has any experience yet with the new high
torque starter for the 912S that Rotax is recommending.
I am considering replacing mine on my 2000 vintage Series 5, but Skystar
has advised me that it won't fit the Series 5 with the bump cowl. (The
bump cowl is not the problem..it's the engine mount that is a tight
fit.) But Lockwood in Florida is advising that the starter will indeed
fit. So I don't know what to believe just yet. So I am turning to the
List to hopefully find an answer.
Thanks for any responses.
Len Shorethose
Series 5 912S
==
==
==
==
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: VACATION - Wimp! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jay Fabian" <experimental208nd@comcast.net>
Sounds like here in Massachusetts.
But I am still not flying in it.
Jay Fabian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott McClintock" <scott_mcclintock@dot.state.ak.us>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: VACATION - Wimp!
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock
<scott_mcclintock@dot.state.ak.us>
>
> Ha, Ha, Ha!
>
> You guys just crack me up. "-6 degrees" why that's t-shirt weather!
>
> Forecast for AKZ211 - Southern Seward Peninsula Coast
>
> Current Conditions: -18 F Pressure: 29.86" rising
> 500 AM AST THU JAN 29 2004
>
> Today... Sunny. Highs 25 below to 5 above. Northeast
winds to 20
> mph. Gusting to 45 mph
>
> Tonight... Mostly clear. Lows zero to 30 below. Local
northeast
> winds 15 to 35 mph. Winds chills to 40
> below.
>
> Friday... Clear. Highs 25 below to 5 above. Northeast
winds 10 to
> 20 mph.
>
> Friday Night... Clear...breezy. Lows zero to 30 below.
Northeast
> winds 15 to 25 mph. Wind chill near 55
> below.
>
>
> Scott in beautiful (tepid) Nome
>
> "jeff.hays@aselia.com" wrote:
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com"
<jeff.hays@aselia.com>
> >
> > Wimp! I walked 30 minutes outside in it going to work! Plus I plan to
> > fly this weekend. With wind chill it's only around -20. I bet the guys
> > in Alaska are laughing!
> >
> > Original Message:
> > -----------------
> > From: gene m. calkins calkinsgm@charter.net
> > Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 06:58:25 -0600
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: VACATION
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "gene m. calkins"
<calkinsgm@charter.net>
> >
> > LIST It is -6 degrees this morning and we are going south to find
some
> > warmer weather. Keep up the good work and stay warm, will be back about
> > the 1st. of April... Gene N99GC
> >
>
>
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: Rotax engine problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Jeff Thomas wrote:
> What should I be doing next?
This is stange, Jeff. I can't see a link between the hot water and the drop in
RPM.
Since you have decoked I guess you have new gaskets that are not leaking. Did
you check your water level? Just a wild shot.
But since I also have a model 3 with 582, I look forward to reading the opinion
of the experts.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: Why Airplanes Are Better than Women |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Kitfox wrote:
> thought you might appreciate this..
Thanks Chris. I once considered marrying a plane but my wife said, no! :-)
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: | Re: Rotax engine problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson" <aerocon1@telusplanet.net>
Hi Jeff, maybe I can help out.
It does sound a lot like a fuel related problem as ignition would not give
you that style of failure.
First, I will ask some questions, then make a few suggestions as to where
you should look for a remedy.
Fuel related does not necessarily mean problems with the carbuetrors or gas
lines. It can also relate to problems in
a. primary compression (things below the pistons) b. secondary compression
(things above the pistons) and exhaust.
The secret is to ferret out where the problem lies.
1. How old (what year was it manufactured or purchased) and how many
hours on the engine (in total)
2. How many hours since last total rebuild
3. How many hours since last top end.
4. Were the crankshaft seals replaced at the last top end service?
5. What happened with the EGT's when the engine rpm dropped (did they go
up or down from normal at wide open throttle (WOT))
Here are a couple of things to check without tearing the engine apart again.
1. A possible restriction in your fuel lines allowing enough fuel to run
at the lower throttle settings, but not enough for full throttle runs.
Check fuel supply too the fuel pump....maybe a clogged fuel filter?
Moisture and fuel filters make for a gooey mess and restrict fuel supply.
Check your tank venting as well. Even a kinked fuel line can cause
enough restriction to cause your problem. If you are using automotive
hose for your impulse line, exchange it for a thick walled urethane
or an automotive hose market "fuel/emission hose". The fuel/emission hose
is
impervious to oils.
2. Give the engine an external check to see that you do not have cracked
carburetor boots, or external crankcase leaks (would show up as a dark
stain
between the case halves etc.
3. Check to make sure your propeller pitch has not changed. We have seen
a few ground adjustable props change all on their own. The blades will go
to coarse all by themselves. Seeing as you had the engine set for 5800 rpm
you are near to loading the prop enough that you can't get properly into
the power band. Static RPM should be somewhere around 6200/6300 rpm. static
WOT 5800rpm static WOT is a bit low.
Aside from the above, there is a good possibility you have a crankshaft seal
leak. If that is the case, you will have to strip the engine down to the
base nothing to change the seals. This is a good time to check your
crankshaft bearings as well (they should be checked every 150 hours or 3
years).
I hope that helps....let me know the operating temps etc. and maybe we can
get your problem sorted out.
regards
Bob Robertson
Light Engine Service Ltd.
Rotax Service Center
St. Albert Airport
St. Albert, Alberta
Canada
T8N 1M8
Phone: 780-418-4164
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Thomas" <jeffthomas@ntlworld.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax engine problem
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Thomas" <jeffthomas@ntlworld.com>
>
> Guys, I could use some advice regarding an engine problem I am
> experiencing:-
>
> I fly a Kitfox III with a Rotax 582 oil injection engine. Up until I put
> it back in the hanger after my last flight about 10 days ago no problems.
On
> Tuesday of this week all seemed normal until I began my take off run. When
> full power is applied for take off I expect to see 5800 rpm which in the
> first few seconds of the take off run (as the aircraft accelerates and the
> prop unloads) increases to about 6200 rpm.
>
> On this occasion the revs initially increased to 5800 and as the take of
> run began they dropped back to about 5200 - 5400 rpm so the take off was
> aborted! Subsequent ground runs showed this to be repeated with the revs
> fluctuating from around 5000 to 5500 rpm while full power was maintained.
At
> all times the engine started easily enough and appeared to run smoothly
with
> no sign of miss firing.
>
> Initial thoughts were that it might be a partial fuel restriction. Fuel
> levels in the float bowls seemed ok, so fuel pipes were removed and fuel
> flow checked, gascolator fuel filter cleaned, fuel pump removed and
stripped
> including removing and examining the pulse pipe, carburettors removed and
> jets checked. No obvious problem was found and when the engine was run
again
> no improvement was forthcoming. Surprise,surprise....
>
> Next the head and barrels were removed for examination and subsequent
> de-coke. Though it was 120 hours since last strip down the engine was in a
> reasonable state although the bottom rings were definitely sticking when
> examined. After reassembly a new set of plugs were fitted for good luck!
At
> the same time as the decoke the resistance was measured of the coils,
> ignition triggers and stator... all were within the Rotax specs.
Subsequent
> engine run up today gave an initial 5800 rpm followed almost immediately
by
> a drop to a steady 5000 - 5200 rpm.
>
> Finally, I noticed today that the water temp was higher than usual.
> Normally in flight (with radiator partly blanked off for this time of year
> in England) I expect to see about 70 *C and perhaps up to 80*C on full
power
> climb. Today the temps eventually got up to just under 100*c when I
finally
> shut down.... but put this down to prolonged running at full power while
> tied down on the ground, therefore not getting the normal airflow through
> the radiator that would happen in flight. Am I right to assume that or
could
> I be looking at a sticking thermostat.... would that account for the rev
> drop I am experiencing?
>
> Sorry to be so long winded in describing what I have been doing but I
want
> you to have the full info. So now over to you lot..... who has experienced
> something similar and how did you cure it? What should I be doing next?
>
> Regards
>
> Jeff
>
>
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: Rotax engine problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Peter Brookes" <pdbrookes@blueyonder.co.uk>
Jeff,
I had the same problem last summer. I went through a similar process of
elimination.
It turned out to be spark plug caps! Apparently, they degrade over time to a
point where they cause these symptoms. Replaced all four with a new set and
then I was back up to 6,200rpm static!
Try it out an let us know!
Pete.
Kitfox II 582 G-BTBG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Thomas" <jeffthomas@ntlworld.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax engine problem
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Thomas" <jeffthomas@ntlworld.com>
>
> Guys, I could use some advice regarding an engine problem I am
> experiencing:-
>
> I fly a Kitfox III with a Rotax 582 oil injection engine. Up until I put
> it back in the hanger after my last flight about 10 days ago no problems.
On
> Tuesday of this week all seemed normal until I began my take off run. When
> full power is applied for take off I expect to see 5800 rpm which in the
> first few seconds of the take off run (as the aircraft accelerates and the
> prop unloads) increases to about 6200 rpm.
>
> On this occasion the revs initially increased to 5800 and as the take of
> run began they dropped back to about 5200 - 5400 rpm so the take off was
> aborted! Subsequent ground runs showed this to be repeated with the revs
> fluctuating from around 5000 to 5500 rpm while full power was maintained.
At
> all times the engine started easily enough and appeared to run smoothly
with
> no sign of miss firing.
>
> Initial thoughts were that it might be a partial fuel restriction. Fuel
> levels in the float bowls seemed ok, so fuel pipes were removed and fuel
> flow checked, gascolator fuel filter cleaned, fuel pump removed and
stripped
> including removing and examining the pulse pipe, carburettors removed and
> jets checked. No obvious problem was found and when the engine was run
again
> no improvement was forthcoming. Surprise,surprise....
>
> Next the head and barrels were removed for examination and subsequent
> de-coke. Though it was 120 hours since last strip down the engine was in a
> reasonable state although the bottom rings were definitely sticking when
> examined. After reassembly a new set of plugs were fitted for good luck!
At
> the same time as the decoke the resistance was measured of the coils,
> ignition triggers and stator... all were within the Rotax specs.
Subsequent
> engine run up today gave an initial 5800 rpm followed almost immediately
by
> a drop to a steady 5000 - 5200 rpm.
>
> Finally, I noticed today that the water temp was higher than usual.
> Normally in flight (with radiator partly blanked off for this time of year
> in England) I expect to see about 70 *C and perhaps up to 80*C on full
power
> climb. Today the temps eventually got up to just under 100*c when I
finally
> shut down.... but put this down to prolonged running at full power while
> tied down on the ground, therefore not getting the normal airflow through
> the radiator that would happen in flight. Am I right to assume that or
could
> I be looking at a sticking thermostat.... would that account for the rev
> drop I am experiencing?
>
> Sorry to be so long winded in describing what I have been doing but I
want
> you to have the full info. So now over to you lot..... who has experienced
> something similar and how did you cure it? What should I be doing next?
>
> Regards
>
> Jeff
>
>
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: Rotax engine problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson" <aerocon1@telusplanet.net>
Pete,
Good idea, should have thought of that myself and added to my list of things
for Jeff to look at.
Jeff, the caps, if they are the burgandy ones, should have 5000 ohms
resistance.
regards
Bob Robertson
Light Engine Services Ltd.
Rotax Service Center
St. Albert Airport
St. Albert, Ab.
T8N 1M8
780-418-4164
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Brookes" <pdbrookes@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Fw: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax engine problem
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Peter Brookes"
<pdbrookes@blueyonder.co.uk>
>
> Jeff,
>
> I had the same problem last summer. I went through a similar process of
> elimination.
>
> It turned out to be spark plug caps! Apparently, they degrade over time to
a
> point where they cause these symptoms. Replaced all four with a new set
and
> then I was back up to 6,200rpm static!
>
> Try it out an let us know!
>
> Pete.
>
> Kitfox II 582 G-BTBG
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Thomas" <jeffthomas@ntlworld.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax engine problem
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Thomas"
<jeffthomas@ntlworld.com>
> >
> > Guys, I could use some advice regarding an engine problem I am
> > experiencing:-
> >
> > I fly a Kitfox III with a Rotax 582 oil injection engine. Up until I
put
> > it back in the hanger after my last flight about 10 days ago no
problems.
> On
> > Tuesday of this week all seemed normal until I began my take off run.
When
> > full power is applied for take off I expect to see 5800 rpm which in the
> > first few seconds of the take off run (as the aircraft accelerates and
the
> > prop unloads) increases to about 6200 rpm.
> >
> > On this occasion the revs initially increased to 5800 and as the take
of
> > run began they dropped back to about 5200 - 5400 rpm so the take off was
> > aborted! Subsequent ground runs showed this to be repeated with the revs
> > fluctuating from around 5000 to 5500 rpm while full power was
maintained.
> At
> > all times the engine started easily enough and appeared to run smoothly
> with
> > no sign of miss firing.
> >
> > Initial thoughts were that it might be a partial fuel restriction.
Fuel
> > levels in the float bowls seemed ok, so fuel pipes were removed and fuel
> > flow checked, gascolator fuel filter cleaned, fuel pump removed and
> stripped
> > including removing and examining the pulse pipe, carburettors removed
and
> > jets checked. No obvious problem was found and when the engine was run
> again
> > no improvement was forthcoming. Surprise,surprise....
> >
> > Next the head and barrels were removed for examination and subsequent
> > de-coke. Though it was 120 hours since last strip down the engine was in
a
> > reasonable state although the bottom rings were definitely sticking when
> > examined. After reassembly a new set of plugs were fitted for good luck!
> At
> > the same time as the decoke the resistance was measured of the coils,
> > ignition triggers and stator... all were within the Rotax specs.
> Subsequent
> > engine run up today gave an initial 5800 rpm followed almost immediately
> by
> > a drop to a steady 5000 - 5200 rpm.
> >
> > Finally, I noticed today that the water temp was higher than usual.
> > Normally in flight (with radiator partly blanked off for this time of
year
> > in England) I expect to see about 70 *C and perhaps up to 80*C on full
> power
> > climb. Today the temps eventually got up to just under 100*c when I
> finally
> > shut down.... but put this down to prolonged running at full power while
> > tied down on the ground, therefore not getting the normal airflow
through
> > the radiator that would happen in flight. Am I right to assume that or
> could
> > I be looking at a sticking thermostat.... would that account for the rev
> > drop I am experiencing?
> >
> > Sorry to be so long winded in describing what I have been doing but I
> want
> > you to have the full info. So now over to you lot..... who has
experienced
> > something similar and how did you cure it? What should I be doing next?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
>
>
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: Rotax engine problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Bob Robertson wrote:
> Good idea, should have thought of that myself and added to my list of things
> for Jeff to look at.
I keep my fingers crossed for you, Jeff, new caps are cheaper than new
crankshaft bearings!
Cheers,
Michel ... who is reading, learning, and blessing the day he came to this list!
do not archive
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: | Cruise Speeds & clean up mods |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Does anyone know if the Model IV 912ul Speedster really could cruise at 130
mph like they claimed it would?
Previous questions about how to get more speed from our Kitfoxes made me
think about this. I have articles where independent aviation writers
claimed 125-140 mph speeds from the Speedster, verified by loran / gps. And
then there are other articles whereas the writers claimed to have verified
110+ out of the long winged 912ul Model IV. Is this all hipe, or is it
really possible? Comments or opinions?
Paul Seehafer
Wisconsin
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: Engine choice - Drag Producers. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Hi Jeff:
I won't claim to be an expert on aerodynamics, but I was once told that the
frontal area of the radial engine is really not that big of a deal because
most of the drag is from the prop disc. And when you think about the Reno
Air Racers or the WWII fighters, that seems to hold true. Last I recall one
of the fastest piston powered aircraft in the race group was a round-engined
Bearcat. While it would make perfect sense that a smooth cowl should
create less drag, apparently it is not as critical as the rest of the
airframe? But, I'm just repeating what I heard. Maybe someone with more
knowledge can shed some light on this theory.
It would be really interesting to hear from someone on the list that
converted from a round cowl to a smooth cowl but kept the same engine and
prop combination.
Paul Seehafer
Central Wisconsin
----- Original Message -----
From: <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice - Drag Producers.
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com"
<jeff.hays@aselia.com>
>
>
> My series 5 with my IO-240B cruises at 120 mph at 2200 rpm,
> and I can exceed VNE in level flight at full throttle. I have
> the aluminum gear which just hangs out in the breeze, and
> I made no attempt to bury the "bar" as some people do. (actually
> a waste of time, since it's all turbulated air underneath anyway,
> and the bar is inside the boundary layer - But that's another
> issue that I know many would argue about).
>
> I think the real drag producer on the fox is the lift struts, OR
> the round cowl. I made foam core fiberglass airfoils for my
> lift struts, based on a recomendation of Dr. Michael Selig at
> UIUC. The other killer is the round cowl. You could spend the rest
> of your life airfoiling and smoothing everything else on the plane,
> but never overcome the drag from that round cowl.
>
> It never ceases to amaze me, that people will spend all their time
> trying to airfoil and smooth everything on a Kitfox, and yet they
> still have a round cowl on the front ...
>
> Some other BIG time waster's are trying to hide all the float attach
> fittings, gas caps, etc. The Kitfox does not have laminar flow
> airfoils, smooth glass fueslage, etc. Basically all the air along
> the fuelage, and wings is turbulent air within 2-3 inches of the
> skin. You can put pretty much anything you want in this area, and
> it will NOT affect drag. The things that affect drag on a Kitfox, are
> items that stick out well into the airstream and have a lot of frontal
> area. Like the Lift Struts, The cowl, the gear legs and wheels...
>
> I think Ron's choice is pretty reasonable actually. If the price is
> right (and knowing Ron it is) he ends up with a very reliable engine.
> With a much better history that some of the engine choices I've seen
> out there.
>
> Jeff Hays
>
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Lowell Fitt lcfitt@inreach.com
> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:13:59 -0800
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
>
> Ron,
> It is interesting that you compare the Whitman Tailwind with the Series 5.
> My suggestion is that to get 115 cruise, you concentrate on every bit of
> fairing that you can possibly do. The tailwind is a very clean airplane
> whereas the 5 as delivered is not so clean. With just a tad more HP than
a
> R-912, my guess is that you will cruise in more the 90 mph range. I fly
> with a group of 912 UL powered Model IVs, some not so clean and one
> weighing in at 605 lbs and the general cruise is in the mid 90s. My
> airplane is very clean and I can get 115, but it is at maximum cruise RPM
> 5500.
>
> Lowell
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron" <rliebmann@comcast.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron" <rliebmann@comcast.net>
> >
> > Hi Milt,
> >
> > Jeff Hays hit it right on the head when he said that I would do it
because
> > the price was great. It will cost me $6000 to install a zero time
C-85
> > with electrical system. A C-85 in a Wittman Tailwind will cruise it at
> > 145mph. Its empty wt. is the same as the Series 5. My climb rate will
be
> > down to about 600fpm but my cruise should be about 115. The higher hp
> > engines will show their hp mostly in climb performance. I'll still be a
> lot
> > better than a Cessna 140...I'll be happy. I hear that the cost of a
new
> > 912s with firewall forward is over 17K now.......Retirement pension
allows
> > for the C-85 at about 1/3 that cost.
> > Just got home from Oshkosh where they had the yearly ski plane/ chili
> fest.
> > 7 deg temp but no wind and blue skies made for a great day. Lots of neat
> > planes on skis. No Kitfoxes, darn.....
> >
> > Ron N55KF
> >
> >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Milt's Kitfox Stuff"
> > <flysly@erols.com>
> > >
> > > Ron,
> > > I would do some head scratching before I put a C-85 on a Series V and
> > > carefully consider a 912 in light of the weight to power ratio. I'm
> > putting
> > > a Franklin A-235 on my Series V that offers 125 hp. Once I get it
> flying
> > > and put some time on it, I plan to upgrade to high compression pistons
> > which
> > > will yield 145 hp. At that power to weight ratio I should have a
pretty
> > > good capability for the cost... about $14-$15K.
> > >
> > > Good Luck,
> > > Milt
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Ron" <rliebmann@comcast.net>
> > > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
> > >
> > >
> > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron" <rliebmann@comcast.net>
> > > >
> > > > Hello Listers,
> > > >
> > > > I have a Model 5 which I will rebuild in the future and I'm
> considering
> > a
> > > > C-85 with starter and alternator. Has anyone heard of a C-85 in a
> > Kitfox?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Ron N55KF
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
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: | Loctite question - heavy water |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
That's English heavy water. We have gone to lite water here for beer
and everything else. That's why our gallons only weight 8.333 lbs.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of martin
dovey
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Loctite question
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "martin dovey"
<kitfox.england@ntlworld.com>
Ah, but a gallon of water in England weighs 10lbs!
----- 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
> >
> >
>
>
=========
>
=========
>
=========
http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list
>
=========
>
>
==
==
==
==
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: | Engine choice - Drag Producers. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron@tvp.com.au>
I've read about the AR5 which broke a number of speed/efficiency records with a 65 hp rotax.... 213 mph. The cowl used is round. The plane picked up most of its speed through aerodynamic improvements. Go to http://www.ar-5.com for info.
Allan
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Seehafer [mailto:av8rps@tznet.com]
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice - Drag Producers.
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Hi Jeff:
I won't claim to be an expert on aerodynamics, but I was once told that the
frontal area of the radial engine is really not that big of a deal because
most of the drag is from the prop disc. And when you think about the Reno
Air Racers or the WWII fighters, that seems to hold true. Last I recall one
of the fastest piston powered aircraft in the race group was a round-engined
Bearcat. While it would make perfect sense that a smooth cowl should
create less drag, apparently it is not as critical as the rest of the
airframe? But, I'm just repeating what I heard. Maybe someone with more
knowledge can shed some light on this theory.
It would be really interesting to hear from someone on the list that
converted from a round cowl to a smooth cowl but kept the same engine and
prop combination.
Paul Seehafer
Central Wisconsin
----- Original Message -----
From: <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice - Drag Producers.
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com"
<jeff.hays@aselia.com>
>
>
> My series 5 with my IO-240B cruises at 120 mph at 2200 rpm,
> and I can exceed VNE in level flight at full throttle. I have
> the aluminum gear which just hangs out in the breeze, and
> I made no attempt to bury the "bar" as some people do. (actually
> a waste of time, since it's all turbulated air underneath anyway,
> and the bar is inside the boundary layer - But that's another
> issue that I know many would argue about).
>
> I think the real drag producer on the fox is the lift struts, OR
> the round cowl. I made foam core fiberglass airfoils for my
> lift struts, based on a recomendation of Dr. Michael Selig at
> UIUC. The other killer is the round cowl. You could spend the rest
> of your life airfoiling and smoothing everything else on the plane,
> but never overcome the drag from that round cowl.
>
> It never ceases to amaze me, that people will spend all their time
> trying to airfoil and smooth everything on a Kitfox, and yet they
> still have a round cowl on the front ...
>
> Some other BIG time waster's are trying to hide all the float attach
> fittings, gas caps, etc. The Kitfox does not have laminar flow
> airfoils, smooth glass fueslage, etc. Basically all the air along
> the fuelage, and wings is turbulent air within 2-3 inches of the
> skin. You can put pretty much anything you want in this area, and
> it will NOT affect drag. The things that affect drag on a Kitfox, are
> items that stick out well into the airstream and have a lot of frontal
> area. Like the Lift Struts, The cowl, the gear legs and wheels...
>
> I think Ron's choice is pretty reasonable actually. If the price is
> right (and knowing Ron it is) he ends up with a very reliable engine.
> With a much better history that some of the engine choices I've seen
> out there.
>
> Jeff Hays
>
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Lowell Fitt lcfitt@inreach.com
> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:13:59 -0800
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
>
> Ron,
> It is interesting that you compare the Whitman Tailwind with the Series 5.
> My suggestion is that to get 115 cruise, you concentrate on every bit of
> fairing that you can possibly do. The tailwind is a very clean airplane
> whereas the 5 as delivered is not so clean. With just a tad more HP than
a
> R-912, my guess is that you will cruise in more the 90 mph range. I fly
> with a group of 912 UL powered Model IVs, some not so clean and one
> weighing in at 605 lbs and the general cruise is in the mid 90s. My
> airplane is very clean and I can get 115, but it is at maximum cruise RPM
> 5500.
>
> Lowell
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron" <rliebmann@comcast.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron" <rliebmann@comcast.net>
> >
> > Hi Milt,
> >
> > Jeff Hays hit it right on the head when he said that I would do it
because
> > the price was great. It will cost me $6000 to install a zero time
C-85
> > with electrical system. A C-85 in a Wittman Tailwind will cruise it at
> > 145mph. Its empty wt. is the same as the Series 5. My climb rate will
be
> > down to about 600fpm but my cruise should be about 115. The higher hp
> > engines will show their hp mostly in climb performance. I'll still be a
> lot
> > better than a Cessna 140...I'll be happy. I hear that the cost of a
new
> > 912s with firewall forward is over 17K now.......Retirement pension
allows
> > for the C-85 at about 1/3 that cost.
> > Just got home from Oshkosh where they had the yearly ski plane/ chili
> fest.
> > 7 deg temp but no wind and blue skies made for a great day. Lots of neat
> > planes on skis. No Kitfoxes, darn.....
> >
> > Ron N55KF
> >
> >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Milt's Kitfox Stuff"
> > <flysly@erols.com>
> > >
> > > Ron,
> > > I would do some head scratching before I put a C-85 on a Series V and
> > > carefully consider a 912 in light of the weight to power ratio. I'm
> > putting
> > > a Franklin A-235 on my Series V that offers 125 hp. Once I get it
> flying
> > > and put some time on it, I plan to upgrade to high compression pistons
> > which
> > > will yield 145 hp. At that power to weight ratio I should have a
pretty
> > > good capability for the cost... about $14-$15K.
> > >
> > > Good Luck,
> > > Milt
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Ron" <rliebmann@comcast.net>
> > > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
> > >
> > >
> > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron" <rliebmann@comcast.net>
> > > >
> > > > Hello Listers,
> > > >
> > > > I have a Model 5 which I will rebuild in the future and I'm
> considering
> > a
> > > > C-85 with starter and alternator. Has anyone heard of a C-85 in a
> > Kitfox?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Ron N55KF
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
The information transmitted in this email is intended only for the person(s) or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary and/or
privileged material.
If you are not the intended recipient(s), any retention, review, retransmission,
disclosure, distribution, dissemination, copying, printing, or other use of,
or the taking of any
action in reliance upon, this information is strictly prohibited and without liability
on our part. If you have received this email in error, please contact
the sender by replying
and delete this email from any computer so that it is not recoverable. Technology
Venture Partners does not guarantee the integrity of any emails or attached
files.
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! --
|