Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:20 AM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. (W Duke)
2. 07:44 AM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. (Lowell Fitt)
3. 07:45 AM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. (jeff.hays@aselia.com)
4. 08:01 AM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. (Clifford Begnaud)
5. 08:03 AM - Re: Cruise Speeds & clean up mods (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
6. 08:21 AM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. (jeff.hays@aselia.com)
7. 08:24 AM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
8. 09:00 AM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. (Lowell Fitt)
9. 10:02 AM - Radiator (David Dawe)
10. 10:12 AM - Re: SkyStar Update (kurt schrader)
11. 10:24 AM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. (Ron)
12. 10:30 AM - Speed WAS Engine choice (Michel Verheughe)
13. 11:12 AM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. (jeff.hays@aselia.com)
14. 11:13 AM - Jim Gilliatt (jeff.hays@aselia.com)
15. 11:53 AM - Re: Speed WAS Engine choice (jeff.hays@aselia.com)
16. 12:26 PM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. (Lines, John)
17. 01:07 PM - Re: Jim Gilliatt (Jim Gilliatt)
18. 01:39 PM - Cruise Speeds (hausding, sid)
19. 01:49 PM - Re: Cruise Speeds (RGray67968@aol.com)
20. 02:15 PM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers (Scott McClintock)
21. 02:32 PM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. (Kenneth and Alice Jones)
22. 02:42 PM - Interesting Taildragger Link + Preheater idea. (jeff.hays@aselia.com)
23. 02:52 PM - Re: Cruise Speeds (Clifford Begnaud)
24. 04:26 PM - Re: Cruise Speeds (Michel Verheughe)
25. 04:28 PM - Re: Re: Rotax engine problem (Kitfox)
26. 04:45 PM - Re: Re: SkyStar Update (Paul Seehafer)
27. 05:06 PM - Re: Cruise Speeds (Paul Seehafer)
28. 05:26 PM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. (Lowell Fitt)
29. 06:01 PM - Re: Interesting Taildragger Link + Preheater idea. (kurt schrader)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke <n981ms@yahoo.com>
I am no aerodynamics expert either but I don't think it's the round shape of the
cowl but the large area opening that "catches" air. Bizjets are round. Rare
Bear is an unlimited Reno Racer Bearcat with a round cowl and a huge spinner
that leaves a fairly small rim of opening in the round cowl.
Maxwell
do not archive
Paul Seehafer <av8rps@tznet.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer"
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:
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice - Drag Producers.
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "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"
>
> 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"
> To:
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron"
> >
> > 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"
> >
> > >
> > > 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"
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
> > >
> > >
> > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron"
> > > >
> > > > 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 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: Engine choice - Drag Producers. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
No experience with a before and after here, but I have a pretty quick
airplane with the round cowl and a lot of fairing mods. I can pretty much
calibrate my tach - the Rotax one that varies with ambient temps - by
comparing the tach with airspeed: 4000 rpm - 70 mph, 5000 rpm - 100 mph,
5500 rpm - 115 mph and redline 118 mph. Keep in mind that I add a ton of
drag with 21X12X8 high floatation tires for the off field stuff. I do have
hubcaps on the rims, though.
I have the standard "heavy" Skystar lift strut fairings, fiberglass over
foam jury strut fairings and horizontal stabilizer strut fairings. I think
my biggest drag reduction is due to the empennage gap seals that took so
long to make - see:
http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1041348095
Incidentally, for you heavy engined speed merchants, this might be a good
mod to add a little weight to the tail that does a lot more than just bend
the tailwheel spring. I used foam laminate to reduce weight. Plywood or
sheet metal would also work with a lot less effort, but with a weight
penalty I couldn't afford.
I have no doubt that the smooth cowl would further reduce drag, but in the
old days, I chose this airplane largely due to its identifiably - the round
cowl. I really liked the looks and still do.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Seehafer" <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>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.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 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: | Engine choice - Drag Producers. |
PRIORITY_NO_NAME
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Can't dispute what you say about the AR-5. Just simply making the
cowl round does not in itself make it a huge drag producer. But take
a look at the average Kitfox, and they look kinda ... Well, I'm not
gonna go and self-inflict a bunch of flames on myself from the
round cowl owners. But I do have an opinion, that they are kinda
draggy. And in fact the IO-240B (God's gift to the Kitfox) won't fit
under the Skystar round cowl anyways ...
My personal opinion, is that lift strut airfoiling is where you'll
see the most amount of drag reduction on a Kitfox anyway.
I was kinda tougue and cheek poking at the folks, who in my opinion
waste a ton of time, on insignificant things like airfoiling gas
caps for instance. I mean, get real - An outta the box gas cap is a
pretty decent turbulator, and we're not talking laminar flow on
the wing of a Kitfox ... (course some say that ... ). You might be in
fact reducing lift by streamlining the gas cap ... :)
I'm not am Aero engineer, but dear old dad is a professor of it, so
when he tells me about things like boundary layer, turbulent flow,
etc. I mostly accept his advice. One other thing he'd say - Why waste
time trying to make a Kitfox go fast ... Buy a different plane if
that's what you want.
Jeff Hays
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Allan Aaron aaaron@tvp.com.au
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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.
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: Engine choice - Drag Producers. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Maxwell,
I think you nailed it!
I was doing some flight testing on our round cowled model 5 after having our
912 overhauled, playing with different pitch settings. I was doing this
without the spinner installed. After I was done I put the spinner back on
and picked up 4 mph. Ours is only a 7" spinner, I bet I could pick up
another 4-5 mph with a bigger spinner which would cover more of the opening
in the cowl.
Cliff
>
> I am no aerodynamics expert either but I don't think it's the round shape
of the cowl but the large area opening that "catches" air. Bizjets are
round. Rare Bear is an unlimited Reno Racer Bearcat with a round cowl and a
huge spinner that leaves a fairly small rim of opening in the round cowl.
>
> Maxwell
> do not archive
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cruise Speeds & clean up mods |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
I routinely cruise in my 912ul powered IV Classic at 107-110 turning 5200 to 5400
rpm--the Rotax recommended cruise power setting. During the initial phase and
after would flight plan at 80 knots. After some minor rigging changes and
adding lift stut/wing fairings and fairings on the joy and horizontal struts 92
knots is the conservative planned figure.
John Kerr
> --> 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 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: | Engine choice - Drag Producers. |
PRIORITY_NO_NAME
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Hi Allan -
I'd be carefull mentioning AR-5 and Kitfox in the same sentence,
especially one with regard to drag, speed, etc.
Seems kinda sacriligious to me, potentially dangerous, entirely
conceivable you could find yourself being struck by lightning, bursting
into flames, or possible worse ... :)
Jeff
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Allan Aaron aaaron@tvp.com.au
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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.
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
one of the rigging changes that helped was raising the leading edge of the horizontal
to the highest possible position which allowed for flying with less down
trim.
in the orignal position I found after landing without touching the flap handle
that cruise at the higher speed needed about 11* down trim of the flaps. with
the change, cruise left them in trail.
penalty? a little more adverse yaw. well worth the change for my Kitfox. "Your
experience may vary."
John Kerr
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
>
> No experience with a before and after here, but I have a pretty quick
> airplane with the round cowl and a lot of fairing mods. I can pretty much
> calibrate my tach - the Rotax one that varies with ambient temps - by
> comparing the tach with airspeed: 4000 rpm - 70 mph, 5000 rpm - 100 mph,
> 5500 rpm - 115 mph and redline 118 mph. Keep in mind that I add a ton of
> drag with 21X12X8 high floatation tires for the off field stuff. I do have
> hubcaps on the rims, though.
>
> I have the standard "heavy" Skystar lift strut fairings, fiberglass over
> foam jury strut fairings and horizontal stabilizer strut fairings. I think
> my biggest drag reduction is due to the empennage gap seals that took so
> long to make - see:
>
> http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1041348095
>
> Incidentally, for you heavy engined speed merchants, this might be a good
> mod to add a little weight to the tail that does a lot more than just bend
> the tailwheel spring. I used foam laminate to reduce weight. Plywood or
> sheet metal would also work with a lot less effort, but with a weight
> penalty I couldn't afford.
>
> I have no doubt that the smooth cowl would further reduce drag, but in the
> old days, I chose this airplane largely due to its identifiably - the round
> cowl. I really liked the looks and still do.
>
> Lowell
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.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>
> > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.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 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: Engine choice - Drag Producers. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Jeff, I can't speak for the gas cap speed issue, but there have been more
than one Kitfox owner that has tried the oil drop trick on the wing aft of
the gas cap and found that the disturbed air fans out significantly behind
the cap - up to two feet at the trailing edge. It is the possible loss of
lift that was of concern, as I recall.
Regarding building another Aircraft if you want speed. I tend to agree, but
recently there has been talk regarding short field performance etc. I think
a real draggy airplane would possible help while landing in tight quarters
once you pull off the power, but I doubt drag is of much help when trying to
get off the ground in a hurry and clearing that tree at the end of the
strip.
Sometimes I think we all tend to become too much like the RV guys at times.
Have you ever heard them talking to each other on the air to air frequency?
All they talk about is performance - manifold pressure, rpms and airspeed.
The faster they get there, the more fun they will have on the ground having
lunch or whatever else they do. I can only imagine how much fun they have
flying. They fly at 5000, we fly at 500. We in our flying group are down
on the deck flying over the river, making every turn, actually seeing stuff.
I talked recently with a C-180 pilot that flew West to the Golden Gate
Bridge, then South under SFO's Class B below the cliffs along the Coast. He
saw the Surfers and Beach strollers and couldn't stop talking about it. He
said he had never flown so low. I don't know if I would make it a practice
in an airplane that stalls at 75 mph, but in my KF, why not?
This is all just one guy's opinion, of course, as is most of the list
traffic, but I can't imagine another airplane. And, as to "Gods gift to the
Kitfox", I also can't imagine anything so perfectly matched as the Rotax
912 and the Model IV.
Lowell
----- 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>
>
>
> Can't dispute what you say about the AR-5. Just simply making the
> cowl round does not in itself make it a huge drag producer. But take
> a look at the average Kitfox, and they look kinda ... Well, I'm not
> gonna go and self-inflict a bunch of flames on myself from the
> round cowl owners. But I do have an opinion, that they are kinda
> draggy. And in fact the IO-240B (God's gift to the Kitfox) won't fit
> under the Skystar round cowl anyways ...
>
> My personal opinion, is that lift strut airfoiling is where you'll
> see the most amount of drag reduction on a Kitfox anyway.
>
> I was kinda tougue and cheek poking at the folks, who in my opinion
> waste a ton of time, on insignificant things like airfoiling gas
> caps for instance. I mean, get real - An outta the box gas cap is a
> pretty decent turbulator, and we're not talking laminar flow on
> the wing of a Kitfox ... (course some say that ... ). You might be in
> fact reducing lift by streamlining the gas cap ... :)
>
> I'm not am Aero engineer, but dear old dad is a professor of it, so
> when he tells me about things like boundary layer, turbulent flow,
> etc. I mostly accept his advice. One other thing he'd say - Why waste
> time trying to make a Kitfox go fast ... Buy a different plane if
> that's what you want.
>
> Jeff Hays
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: "David Dawe" <davedawe@3web.net>
Has anyone replaced the radiator supplied by Skystar(532,1989) with a lower
priced unit?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Robertson" <aerocon1@telusplanet.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> 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 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: SkyStar Update |
MARKETING_SUBJECT@matronics.com
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hot off the press at APOA
SKYSTAR PREPARES FOR NEW SPORT AIRCRAFT CATEGORY
SkyStar Aircraft, makers of the Kitfox line of
aircraft, is taking the coming light-sport aircraft
category so seriously it decided to restructure its
company to meet the potential demand for new
airplanes. The company has been split into two parts,
with one focusing on kitplanes and the other on
certified sport aircraft. The FAA is expected to
publish later this year a final rule that will allow
sport pilots to use drivers' licenses in lieu of
medical certificates--as long as they don't have
any known medical conditions that would prohibit them
from meeting the requirements--when flying
low-performance aircraft. So far, SkyStar's sales are
up 25 percent over the same period last year. The
company
hopes to see a bigger bump in sales with its certified
aircraft division.
__________________________________
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: Engine choice - Drag Producers. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron" <rliebmann@comcast.net>
The big secret to making a round cowling more efficient and less draggy is
to have the exit opening area half again as large as the intake area. This
came straight from Tony Bingelis, one of the best gurus of aircraft design.
I spoke with him in 1992 about this issue and he explained that this is the
one biggest way to reduce the drag of a round cowl. I have seen so many
Kitfoxes where the builders have mounted the ring cowl almost flush with the
main cowl, thinking that that is best.
I agree with Maxwell's comment found below. The air dams up, pressurizes
and heats up inside the cowl and some if it expands back out of the front,
behind the prop, causing more drag. That's why the larger exit area is
needed. All this theory came from Tony. I suggest that everyone have a set
of his manuals bought thru the EAA library.
Ron N55KF
>
> I am no aerodynamics expert either but I don't think it's the round shape
of the cowl but the large area opening that "catches" air. Bizjets are
round. Rare Bear is an unlimited Reno Racer Bearcat with a round cowl and a
huge spinner that leaves a fairly small rim of opening in the round cowl.
>
> Maxwell
> do not archive
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: | Speed WAS Engine choice |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
"jeff.hays@aselia.com" wrote:
> Why waste time trying to make a Kitfox go fast ... Buy a different plane if
> that's what you want.
My regards to your dad, Jeff. I agree with him.
During my lifetime sailing at an average of 5 knots, I often said to my
impatient family: If you want speed, buy a speedboat. But if you want to go
far, trust sailboats! Any man-made machine is a compromise of performance.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. |
MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, PRIORITY_NO_NAME
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Lowell -
Lowell, I don't agree with that. With a Kitfox wing, the real
difference is in what is happening to the boundary layer over
the wing. Simply seeing an oil drop spread out, of course will
tell us about the airflow along the surface of the wing, but
the real question is what's happening to the boundary layer???
I don't think we can really say, unless we pop this wing cross
section into a wind tunnel and flow some smoke over it.
Actually though, the bigger picture is what're we gaining anyway?
My "heavy" Kitfox power-on stalls at somewhere around 40 mph, and
it's rock steady when it does. Even if I spent the rest of my life
working on it, I might if I'm lucky get the wing to keep flying until
maybe 37-38 mph ... maybe 35? It's not worth the trouble. The plane
is a great slow speed aircraft right now!
Anyway - I guess I'm an advocate of the leave it alone philosophy.
The Kitfox is pretty good for what it does, exactly as designed.
I think there's some minor improvements, but it's good enough. I'm
spending time on learning to fly it better. I just wish it had
spoilers so I could make it fly less during landing (Ron Liebmann's
idea).
Jeff
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Lowell Fitt lcfitt@inreach.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice - Drag Producers.
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Jeff, I can't speak for the gas cap speed issue, but there have been more
than one Kitfox owner that has tried the oil drop trick on the wing aft of
the gas cap and found that the disturbed air fans out significantly behind
the cap - up to two feet at the trailing edge. It is the possible loss of
lift that was of concern, as I recall.
Regarding building another Aircraft if you want speed. I tend to agree, but
recently there has been talk regarding short field performance etc. I think
a real draggy airplane would possible help while landing in tight quarters
once you pull off the power, but I doubt drag is of much help when trying to
get off the ground in a hurry and clearing that tree at the end of the
strip.
Sometimes I think we all tend to become too much like the RV guys at times.
Have you ever heard them talking to each other on the air to air frequency?
All they talk about is performance - manifold pressure, rpms and airspeed.
The faster they get there, the more fun they will have on the ground having
lunch or whatever else they do. I can only imagine how much fun they have
flying. They fly at 5000, we fly at 500. We in our flying group are down
on the deck flying over the river, making every turn, actually seeing stuff.
I talked recently with a C-180 pilot that flew West to the Golden Gate
Bridge, then South under SFO's Class B below the cliffs along the Coast. He
saw the Surfers and Beach strollers and couldn't stop talking about it. He
said he had never flown so low. I don't know if I would make it a practice
in an airplane that stalls at 75 mph, but in my KF, why not?
This is all just one guy's opinion, of course, as is most of the list
traffic, but I can't imagine another airplane. And, as to "Gods gift to the
Kitfox", I also can't imagine anything so perfectly matched as the Rotax
912 and the Model IV.
Lowell
----- 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>
>
>
> Can't dispute what you say about the AR-5. Just simply making the
> cowl round does not in itself make it a huge drag producer. But take
> a look at the average Kitfox, and they look kinda ... Well, I'm not
> gonna go and self-inflict a bunch of flames on myself from the
> round cowl owners. But I do have an opinion, that they are kinda
> draggy. And in fact the IO-240B (God's gift to the Kitfox) won't fit
> under the Skystar round cowl anyways ...
>
> My personal opinion, is that lift strut airfoiling is where you'll
> see the most amount of drag reduction on a Kitfox anyway.
>
> I was kinda tougue and cheek poking at the folks, who in my opinion
> waste a ton of time, on insignificant things like airfoiling gas
> caps for instance. I mean, get real - An outta the box gas cap is a
> pretty decent turbulator, and we're not talking laminar flow on
> the wing of a Kitfox ... (course some say that ... ). You might be in
> fact reducing lift by streamlining the gas cap ... :)
>
> I'm not am Aero engineer, but dear old dad is a professor of it, so
> when he tells me about things like boundary layer, turbulent flow,
> etc. I mostly accept his advice. One other thing he'd say - Why waste
> time trying to make a Kitfox go fast ... Buy a different plane if
> that's what you want.
>
> Jeff Hays
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 |
|
PRIORITY_NO_NAME
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Hey Jim -
Sent you a couple replies to your email's, but they keep bouncing
from your email address ...
Jeff
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: | Speed WAS Engine choice |
MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, PRIORITY_NO_NAME
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Exactly! I've been on and off the Kitfox list for a number of
years, and it's always the same thing. This huge debate about
how to make a Kitfox go from being slow at 110 mph, to fast at
112 mph ... And only spend 500 hours on airfoiling stuff to do
it ...
I REALLY love my Kitfox, because I can land and be stopped by
the point most of the 172 drivers are starting to flare. And
on takeoff, I have to lower the nose to look down at the guy who
departed ahead of me.
Jeff
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Michel Verheughe michel@online.no
Subject: Kitfox-List: Speed WAS Engine choice
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
"jeff.hays@aselia.com" wrote:
> Why waste time trying to make a Kitfox go fast ... Buy a different plane
if
> that's what you want.
My regards to your dad, Jeff. I agree with him.
During my lifetime sailing at an average of 5 knots, I often said to my
impatient family: If you want speed, buy a speedboat. But if you want to go
far, trust sailboats! Any man-made machine is a compromise of performance.
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: | Engine choice - Drag Producers. |
MARKETING_SUBJECT
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lines, John" <JLines@phelpsdodge.com>
Folks, there's nothing wrong with cleaning up any plane to make it go
faster. You don't HAVE to go at top speed all the time, and when you choose
to go slower you can do so at a lower power setting and with a corresponding
decrease in fuel burn etc. The engine might last a little longer too. That's
whats great about these planes, they let one do just about what one wants to
re. performance, accessories etc. As they say in Spanish "Cada chancho a su
rancho" JWL. Model II 912
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron [mailto:rliebmann@comcast.net]
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice - Drag Producers.
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron" <rliebmann@comcast.net>
The big secret to making a round cowling more efficient and less draggy is
to have the exit opening area half again as large as the intake area. This
came straight from Tony Bingelis, one of the best gurus of aircraft design.
I spoke with him in 1992 about this issue and he explained that this is the
one biggest way to reduce the drag of a round cowl. I have seen so many
Kitfoxes where the builders have mounted the ring cowl almost flush with the
main cowl, thinking that that is best.
I agree with Maxwell's comment found below. The air dams up, pressurizes
and heats up inside the cowl and some if it expands back out of the front,
behind the prop, causing more drag. That's why the larger exit area is
needed. All this theory came from Tony. I suggest that everyone have a set
of his manuals bought thru the EAA library.
Ron N55KF
>
> I am no aerodynamics expert either but I don't think it's the round shape
of the cowl but the large area opening that "catches" air. Bizjets are
round. Rare Bear is an unlimited Reno Racer Bearcat with a round cowl and a
huge spinner that leaves a fairly small rim of opening in the round cowl.
>
> Maxwell
> do not archive
This message (including attachments) is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, please
notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of this
e-mail is prohibited.
Este mensaje (incluyendo los archivos adjuntos) est dirigido slo al receptor sealado
y puede contener informacin de carcter privilegiada, privada o confidencial.
Si usted no es el receptor sealado o bien ha recibido este mensaje por error,
por favor notifique inmediatamente al remitente y elimine el mensaje original.
Cualquier otro uso de este mensaje de correo electrnico est prohibido.
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: Jim Gilliatt |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Gilliatt <jim.gilliatt@att.net>
Hi Jeff,
What sort of message do you get? I get the "list" stuff OK.
Jim
jeff.hays@aselia.com wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
>
>
>Hey Jim -
>
>Sent you a couple replies to your email's, but they keep bouncing
>from your email address ...
>
>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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "hausding, sid" <sidh@charter.net>
Paul, they get 120mph out of the Avid Speedwing with the 582 Rotax, sounds
like the Kitfox should get 130 behind the 912......if real clean and faired
out.
Sid
--------------
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 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: Cruise Speeds |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: RGray67968@aol.com
Hi Gang,
Just curious.....why are all you folks worrying about 'how fast' your Kitfox
will go? If you want to go 'fast' then why are you flying Kitfoxes? Kitfoxes
are great little airplanes to tool around the sky and enjoy the afternoon.
Nothing more fun than buzzing around checking out the sites and even enjoying an
occasional X-country in your Kitfox. If you want to go 'fast'....sorry....but
you guys are flying the wrong airplane. Enjoy your Kitfox for what it is. Just
my opinion and worth what you paid for it.....smile.
Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm - RV6 w 280+ hours - former Kitfox
owner (and loved every 115 mph flight in my little Kitfox)
Oh yea......and you guys need to do a LOT better job with the do not archive
- ever search a topic looking for something??? No fun weeding through all the
'junk' to get what you want.
do not archive this either :
)
Paul, they get 120mph out of the Avid Speedwing with the 582 Rotax, sounds
like the Kitfox should get 130 behind the 912......if real clean and faired
out.
Sid
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 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: | Engine choice - Drag Producers |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock <scott_mcclintock@dot.state.ak.us>
As they say in Spanish "Cada chancho a su rancho"
How about, "Donde sey compra con mucho gusto"
I don't understand. I got my KitFox BECAUSE it flys slow.
The performance (top speed) though adequate is not why this plane
appeals to me.
I hope I'm preaching to the choir on this.
Besides, those "performance" planes don't fly slow well anyway.
'Viva la KitFox
All this Spanish is making me cold.
Scott - Nome
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: Engine choice - Drag Producers. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kenneth and Alice Jones" <kmjones@innernet.net>
Hi Lowell: My name is Ken Jones. You are right on about the RV guys. I
was one. I completed an RV-4 in 1991 and flew it for 12 years. It was a
blast. The closest thing to a fighter I'll ever see. But I sold it last
year for a 172 and a new Kitfox Series 7 kit. Why?? I now have grandsons
and decided I would really like to fly "low and slow" with them sitting
beside me. I'll sell the 172 when the Fox is done. Don't get me wrong! The
RV was and is a great airplane for the purpose designed. I loved it, but I
really had no reason to go that fast. I'm looking forward to getting down
closer to earth with you Kitfox guys. Ken Jones
DO NOT ARCHIEVE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice - Drag Producers.
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
>
> Jeff, I can't speak for the gas cap speed issue, but there have been more
> than one Kitfox owner that has tried the oil drop trick on the wing aft of
> the gas cap and found that the disturbed air fans out significantly behind
> the cap - up to two feet at the trailing edge. It is the possible loss of
> lift that was of concern, as I recall.
>
> Regarding building another Aircraft if you want speed. I tend to agree,
but
> recently there has been talk regarding short field performance etc. I
think
> a real draggy airplane would possible help while landing in tight quarters
> once you pull off the power, but I doubt drag is of much help when trying
to
> get off the ground in a hurry and clearing that tree at the end of the
> strip.
>
> Sometimes I think we all tend to become too much like the RV guys at
times.
> Have you ever heard them talking to each other on the air to air
frequency?
> All they talk about is performance - manifold pressure, rpms and airspeed.
> The faster they get there, the more fun they will have on the ground
having
> lunch or whatever else they do. I can only imagine how much fun they have
> flying. They fly at 5000, we fly at 500. We in our flying group are down
> on the deck flying over the river, making every turn, actually seeing
stuff.
>
> I talked recently with a C-180 pilot that flew West to the Golden Gate
> Bridge, then South under SFO's Class B below the cliffs along the Coast.
He
> saw the Surfers and Beach strollers and couldn't stop talking about it.
He
> said he had never flown so low. I don't know if I would make it a practice
> in an airplane that stalls at 75 mph, but in my KF, why not?
>
> This is all just one guy's opinion, of course, as is most of the list
> traffic, but I can't imagine another airplane. And, as to "Gods gift to
the
> Kitfox", I also can't imagine anything so perfectly matched as the Rotax
> 912 and the Model IV.
>
> Lowell
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Engine choice - Drag Producers.
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com"
> <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
> >
> >
> > Can't dispute what you say about the AR-5. Just simply making the
> > cowl round does not in itself make it a huge drag producer. But take
> > a look at the average Kitfox, and they look kinda ... Well, I'm not
> > gonna go and self-inflict a bunch of flames on myself from the
> > round cowl owners. But I do have an opinion, that they are kinda
> > draggy. And in fact the IO-240B (God's gift to the Kitfox) won't fit
> > under the Skystar round cowl anyways ...
> >
> > My personal opinion, is that lift strut airfoiling is where you'll
> > see the most amount of drag reduction on a Kitfox anyway.
> >
> > I was kinda tougue and cheek poking at the folks, who in my opinion
> > waste a ton of time, on insignificant things like airfoiling gas
> > caps for instance. I mean, get real - An outta the box gas cap is a
> > pretty decent turbulator, and we're not talking laminar flow on
> > the wing of a Kitfox ... (course some say that ... ). You might be in
> > fact reducing lift by streamlining the gas cap ... :)
> >
> > I'm not am Aero engineer, but dear old dad is a professor of it, so
> > when he tells me about things like boundary layer, turbulent flow,
> > etc. I mostly accept his advice. One other thing he'd say - Why waste
> > time trying to make a Kitfox go fast ... Buy a different plane if
> > that's what you want.
> >
> > Jeff Hays
>
>
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: | Interesting Taildragger Link + Preheater idea. |
PRIORITY_NO_NAME
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Have been spending a lot of time reading the discussion links on the
http://www.supercub.org website. Lot's of good stuff in there about
flying the bush, and very applicable to the Kitfox.
Also learned about building an engine preheater from an MSR backpacking
stove. Built one from 4" aluminum dryer tubing, and an aluminum box
I made. Crank up the MSR stove, pop the box over it, run the tube into
the cowl, wait a while, and presto warm engine. (yes I do have a fire
extinguisher). Look's like the Northern Companion, but cost me $12 to
make (less the stove, which I already have.).
Commercial $400 version ... http://www.tacaviation.com/emanual.html
Jeff Hays
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cruise Speeds |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Why try to get more speed out of a kitfox?
Well, here's my reasons. We purchased a model 5 kitfox with a 912 in early
1999. The plane would true out at 92 mph. It has the round cowl, it came
with strut fairings and the prop we had was not optimized for speed. Plus
it's draggy in other areas. At this speed I would not go on a cross country
trip unless I had plenty of time. When going to Oshkosh it usually required
an overnight stop somewhere unless you got a real early start and spent way
too many hours in the saddle.
While the plane is great for going into short backcountry strips, I couldn't
get into the ones that I wanted to get into, because the darn thing was so
slow I didn't have the time to get TO them.
Now, since we bought Vic Jacko's Kitfox with the 0-235, smooth cowl and lots
of fairings, things are different. This plane cruises comfortably at 130 mph
TAS (tops out at 140)
I recently flew to Dallas in it, inspected a plane, had lunch with a friend
and almost made it back to Colorado before dark. Jeez, I'd still be trying
to get home if I had gone in the old one!
Now a trip to Oshkosh will be a little over a half day instead of an
overnighter.
Now a weekend trip to any number of nearby states is much more do-able. We
will go on many more trips than we were able to before.
That extra 35-40 mph really makes a difference. Best of all, it still stalls
just as slow as the older, slower one. So what have I lost by having a
faster kitfox, nothing! What I have gained? A much more usable airplane.
I've been working on speeding up the one with the 912 in preparation for
selling it. It's doing 107 mph now, but could easily see 115-120 with a few
more, very inexpensive mods. It will be a much more usable airplane than it
was before! Heck, I'm almost sorry I bought the other one now.
I will confirm what Lowell said about having a draggy plane for getting into
tight places. In our draggy one it was indeed "easier" to get landed short.
In the new one, I can still land just about as short (it's heavier) but it
requires different techniques and a little more effort. A trade off that I
would gladly make anyday.
Now if I could just figure out how to put a retractable spoiler on the
thing.....
Best Regards,
Cliff
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cruise Speeds |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Clifford Begnaud wrote:
> That extra 35-40 mph really makes a difference.
I am sure it does, Cliff. I also agree that a draggy plane doesn't help STOL
performance either. The bottom line is: drag doesn't help anyone.
But, with my only 70 hours in a plane, I learned that, up there, there is
always a wind to consider. Being a sailor who has sailed longer than the
average guy, I know that sometimes, rather than tacking against a headwind, it
is better to wait until the day after and enjoy maybe a nice and comfortable reaching.
What I am saying is this: Does the extra speed helps if you have to fight a headwind?
I hope that in a couple of years, I will be able to cross Europe with my
Kitfox. Planning the trip is very enjoyable. I already think about what I will
do if I meet strong headwinds. I think I'll just take the day off and discover
the surroundings of the airfield I am staying at. Just an old sailor's habit.
Cheers,
Michel
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: Rotax engine problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kitfox" <Kitfox@chrisbates.co.uk>
Aaaaahhha, Peter, so you do something other than ear-wigging then :>)
Going to be a bit windy this weekend from the sound of it, you off down the
field at all?
I expect I'll be in Ricks greenhouse doing my wings.
Adrian needs a set of bungies from me, so if someone is likely to be over
there and it's flyable he,ll drop in and pick them up.
Worried about Andy selling KP, Adrian has offered to give him some dual
stick time if we can talk him into it, think we can persuade him to give it
another go?
Chris
----- 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 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SkyStar Update |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
I'm glad to hear they are doing this. I know there is already a lot of
discussion in our local ultralight group indicating that many of the guys
that currently operate "fat" ultralights will be ready to move up into a
"real" airplane. And they drool over Kitfoxes (rightfully so!) Plus, there
are a bunch of other pilots that are tired of some of the B.S. that goes
with owning older certified aircraft, so they too are interested in a
Kitfox. They are especially attracted to the versatility, cost
effectiveness, and capability of the design. But many of them don't want to
build one. So overall, I think Skystar will have a big market for their
airplanes. It's great to see them be so proactive. I know I will do all I
can to help them sell airplanes, as I firmly believe these little airplanes
are all the airplane most guys need. (Unfortunately not all of them know
that yet. So we have to educate the ones that want their own airplane but
think they can't afford one....)
Paul Seehafer
----- Original Message -----
From: "kurt schrader" <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
<MARKETING_SUBJECT@matronics.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: SkyStar Update
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> Hot off the press at APOA
>
> SKYSTAR PREPARES FOR NEW SPORT AIRCRAFT CATEGORY
> SkyStar Aircraft, makers of the Kitfox line of
> aircraft, is taking the coming light-sport aircraft
> category so seriously it decided to restructure its
> company to meet the potential demand for new
> airplanes. The company has been split into two parts,
> with one focusing on kitplanes and the other on
> certified sport aircraft. The FAA is expected to
> publish later this year a final rule that will allow
> sport pilots to use drivers' licenses in lieu of
> medical certificates--as long as they don't have
> any known medical conditions that would prohibit them
> from meeting the requirements--when flying
> low-performance aircraft. So far, SkyStar's sales are
> up 25 percent over the same period last year. The
> company
> hopes to see a bigger bump in sales with its certified
> aircraft division.
>
> __________________________________
>
>
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: Cruise Speeds |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Hi Rick:
I'm not trying to make a case against the slow speed of the design. But I
do think anything we can do to make our airplanes faster makes them not only
more useful for cross country travel, but also more efficient. My initial
question about the Speedsters true cruise speed was really to find out if
the design fine tuned with only 80 hp could really be that fast?
My Lake amphibian isn't a fast airplane either, but it sure is versatile.
And you wouldn't believe how envious some of my float plane buddies are that
fly around at under 100 mph when I can breeze by them 30+ mph faster burning
less fuel. And as we all know, the longer the trip, the more benefit we see
from any increase in speed.
Given my druthers, Kitfoxes would go 200 knots. But we know that will never
happen. However, if we can get 120+ mph out of our planes it will make all
the difference between it being used as a local puddle jumper, or an
effective and efficient cross country cruiser.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: <RGray67968@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cruise Speeds
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: RGray67968@aol.com
>
> Hi Gang,
> Just curious.....why are all you folks worrying about 'how fast' your
Kitfox
> will go? If you want to go 'fast' then why are you flying Kitfoxes?
Kitfoxes
> are great little airplanes to tool around the sky and enjoy the afternoon.
> Nothing more fun than buzzing around checking out the sites and even
enjoying an
> occasional X-country in your Kitfox. If you want to go
'fast'....sorry....but
> you guys are flying the wrong airplane. Enjoy your Kitfox for what it is.
Just
> my opinion and worth what you paid for it.....smile.
> Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm - RV6 w 280+ hours - former Kitfox
> owner (and loved every 115 mph flight in my little Kitfox)
> Oh yea......and you guys need to do a LOT better job with the do not
archive
> - ever search a topic looking for something??? No fun weeding through all
the
> 'junk' to get what you want.
> do not archive this either :
> )
>
> Paul, they get 120mph out of the Avid Speedwing with the 582 Rotax, sounds
> like the Kitfox should get 130 behind the 912......if real clean and
faired
> out.
> Sid
>
> 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 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: Engine choice - Drag Producers. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Hi, Ken. I hope I didn't sound like I was disparaging the RV series
airplanes. It was just my way of saying that for my money, Flying is for
the fun. Two years ago while flying home across the Nevada desert Toward
Sacramento, our group was cruising at under *** ft in a river gorge while
another group was flying at 10,000 ft to southern California. We tried to
get them to come down and join us. They were too busy following their GPS
track. I bet they got home before we did.
Lowell
.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth and Alice Jones" <kmjones@innernet.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice - Drag Producers.
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kenneth and Alice Jones"
<kmjones@innernet.net>
>
> Hi Lowell: My name is Ken Jones. You are right on about the RV guys. I
> was one. I completed an RV-4 in 1991 and flew it for 12 years. It was a
> blast. The closest thing to a fighter I'll ever see. But I sold it last
> year for a 172 and a new Kitfox Series 7 kit. Why?? I now have grandsons
> and decided I would really like to fly "low and slow" with them sitting
> beside me. I'll sell the 172 when the Fox is done. Don't get me wrong!
The
> RV was and is a great airplane for the purpose designed. I loved it, but
I
> really had no reason to go that fast. I'm looking forward to getting down
> closer to earth with you Kitfox guys. Ken Jones
>
> DO NOT ARCHIEVE
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice - Drag Producers.
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
> >
> > Jeff, I can't speak for the gas cap speed issue, but there have been
more
> > than one Kitfox owner that has tried the oil drop trick on the wing aft
of
> > the gas cap and found that the disturbed air fans out significantly
behind
> > the cap - up to two feet at the trailing edge. It is the possible loss
of
> > lift that was of concern, as I recall.
> >
> > Regarding building another Aircraft if you want speed. I tend to agree,
> but
> > recently there has been talk regarding short field performance etc. I
> think
> > a real draggy airplane would possible help while landing in tight
quarters
> > once you pull off the power, but I doubt drag is of much help when
trying
> to
> > get off the ground in a hurry and clearing that tree at the end of the
> > strip.
> >
> > Sometimes I think we all tend to become too much like the RV guys at
> times.
> > Have you ever heard them talking to each other on the air to air
> frequency?
> > All they talk about is performance - manifold pressure, rpms and
airspeed.
> > The faster they get there, the more fun they will have on the ground
> having
> > lunch or whatever else they do. I can only imagine how much fun they
have
> > flying. They fly at 5000, we fly at 500. We in our flying group are
down
> > on the deck flying over the river, making every turn, actually seeing
> stuff.
> >
> > I talked recently with a C-180 pilot that flew West to the Golden Gate
> > Bridge, then South under SFO's Class B below the cliffs along the Coast.
> He
> > saw the Surfers and Beach strollers and couldn't stop talking about it.
> He
> > said he had never flown so low. I don't know if I would make it a
practice
> > in an airplane that stalls at 75 mph, but in my KF, why not?
> >
> > This is all just one guy's opinion, of course, as is most of the list
> > traffic, but I can't imagine another airplane. And, as to "Gods gift to
> the
> > Kitfox", I also can't imagine anything so perfectly matched as the
Rotax
> > 912 and the Model IV.
> >
> > Lowell
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
> > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Engine choice - Drag Producers.
> >
> >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com"
> > <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > Can't dispute what you say about the AR-5. Just simply making the
> > > cowl round does not in itself make it a huge drag producer. But take
> > > a look at the average Kitfox, and they look kinda ... Well, I'm not
> > > gonna go and self-inflict a bunch of flames on myself from the
> > > round cowl owners. But I do have an opinion, that they are kinda
> > > draggy. And in fact the IO-240B (God's gift to the Kitfox) won't fit
> > > under the Skystar round cowl anyways ...
> > >
> > > My personal opinion, is that lift strut airfoiling is where you'll
> > > see the most amount of drag reduction on a Kitfox anyway.
> > >
> > > I was kinda tougue and cheek poking at the folks, who in my opinion
> > > waste a ton of time, on insignificant things like airfoiling gas
> > > caps for instance. I mean, get real - An outta the box gas cap is a
> > > pretty decent turbulator, and we're not talking laminar flow on
> > > the wing of a Kitfox ... (course some say that ... ). You might be in
> > > fact reducing lift by streamlining the gas cap ... :)
> > >
> > > I'm not am Aero engineer, but dear old dad is a professor of it, so
> > > when he tells me about things like boundary layer, turbulent flow,
> > > etc. I mostly accept his advice. One other thing he'd say - Why waste
> > > time trying to make a Kitfox go fast ... Buy a different plane if
> > > that's what you want.
> > >
> > > Jeff Hays
> >
> >
>
>
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: Interesting Taildragger Link + Preheater idea. |
MARKETING_SUBJECT@matronics.com
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Thanks Jeff,
I got all wrapped up just looking at Cub pictures and
finally had top put it aside for later. Good link.
Kurt S.
--- "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by:
> "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
>
>
> Have been spending a lot of time reading the
> discussion links on the
> http://www.supercub.org website. Lot's of good stuff
> in there about
> flying the bush, and very applicable to the Kitfox.
>
> Jeff Hays
__________________________________
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! --
|