Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:58 AM - Re: Radiator (broschart)
2. 05:45 AM - Re: TEST (Jeff Thomas)
3. 05:54 AM - Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems (Jeff Thomas)
4. 06:39 AM - Re: Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems (Michel Verheughe)
5. 07:20 AM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. (John Larsen)
6. 08:34 AM - Re: Cruise Speeds (Lowell Fitt)
7. 10:19 AM - Re: Re: TEST (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
8. 11:21 AM - Re: What gives at Skystar? (Dcecil3@aol.com)
9. 11:47 AM - Re: What gives at Skystar? (Dcecil3@aol.com)
10. 11:56 AM - Re: What gives at Skystar? (dsherburn)
11. 11:59 AM - Re: What gives at Skystar? (Dcecil3@aol.com)
12. 12:11 PM - KITFOX FOR SALE (Steve & Bonnie Lorenz)
13. 02:25 PM - Re: What gives at Skystar? (Arthur Nation)
14. 02:41 PM - Re: Compas sensor in wing tip (Torgeir Mortensen)
15. 02:55 PM - Re: Cruise Speeds (Randy Daughenbaugh)
16. 03:33 PM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. (Torgeir Mortensen)
17. 04:54 PM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. (kurt schrader)
18. 05:26 PM - Re: 912S Starter (John Banes)
19. 05:33 PM - Re: Compas sensor in wing tip (Rick)
20. 05:45 PM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. (Vic Jacko)
21. 05:56 PM - Brake Fire (John E. King)
22. 08:05 PM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. (Lowell Fitt)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: broschart <cfbflyer@localnet.com>
Yes i put in a r5290 from LEAF but haven't used it enough to tell if it
is better than the original
Have a good day - Charlie
David Dawe wrote:
>
> --> 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>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> 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 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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Thomas" <jeffthomas@ntlworld.com>
I seem to be having problems mailing to this list. Last two messages were
bounced.
Jeff Thomas
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Thomas" <jeffthomas@ntlworld.com>
Here is a message I tried to send to this list yesterday, and which was
bounced.
Regards
Jeff Thomas
Message reads:-
Michael
When you fly using a two stroke engine you normally get higher power
immediately on take off than you do from about 500 feet and above. I
understand this power reduction is called "hot drop".
During take off when the engine is on full power and working very hard it
quickly gets much hotter (than when taxiing on the ground) and this heat
is
transferred to the crankcase. A two stroke engine draws the fuel and air
mixture through this very hot crankcase where it is heated up
significantly
before it transfers to the cylinder for combustion. This hot fuel / air
mix
is a little like applying "carb heat" on a conventional engine which we
all
know causes a power reduction from the engine when the hot air is applied.
Nothing you can do about this with a two stroke engine, and under normal
conditions it is not a significant problem. I just feel that my engine is
getting VERY hot and this is causing a much greater problem (power
reduction) than normal.
Today I tried Pete Brookes suggestion of new plug caps but I am afraid it
did not solve my problem. Because I still feel the problem might be
connected with overheating I decided to remove the thermostat from my
engine
in case it was not opening properly. This time I started the engine and
after a short warm up applied full power and saw my rev counter reading a
fairly steady 5800 - 6000rpm!
I kept full power applied for 4 minutes (I timed it) and the power
remained
constant around 5800 rpm during that time...... but the water temperature
climbed steadily up to 85*C at which point I shut the engine down. After
shut down I continued to monitor the water temperature and saw it climb up
to a maximum of 95*C presumably from the residual heat in the head and
cylinders, and much hotter than the Rotax maximum of 80*C.
I then went home and tested the thermostat in hot water and found it was
opening (at about 60*c) and closing OK. This makes me think even more
that
the problem is temperature related but not caused by the thermostat. I now
wonder if it could be the water pump not working properly and circulating
the cooling water around the engine. I think this will be the next place
to
look and will let you know if I have any success.
Regards
Jeff
Do not archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax engine problem
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> Jeff Thomas wrote:
> > What should I be doing next?
>
> This is stange, Jeff. I can't see a link between the hot water and the
drop in RPM.
> Since you have decoked I guess you have new gaskets that are not
leaking.
Did
> you check your water level? Just a wild shot.
>
> But since I also have a model 3 with 582, I look forward to reading the
opinion
> of the experts.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Thomas" <jeffthomas@ntlworld.com>
To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 1:45 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: TEST
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Thomas"
<jeffthomas@ntlworld.com>
>
> I seem to be having problems mailing to this list. Last two messages
were
> bounced.
>
> Jeff Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Rotax 582 Engine problems |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Jeff Thomas wrote:
> Here is a message I tried to send to this list yesterday, and which was
> bounced.
Probably because of the MyDoom virus, Jeff. The same thing happens on other
lists I am subscribed to.The virus (worm) creates a lot of extra emails that
saturates the already narrow intercontinental bandwidths.
> When you fly using a two stroke engine you normally get higher power
> immediately on take off than you do from about 500 feet and above. I
> understand this power reduction is called "hot drop".
I didn't know that but I notice that max power on take off is less than once
above 500 ft AGL, as you say. Now I know why, thank you.
> I continued to monitor the water temperature and saw it climb up
> to a maximum of 95*C presumably from the residual heat in the head and
> cylinders, and much hotter than the Rotax maximum of 80*C.
Yes, I also noticed that if, e.g. I start up, taxi to run-up, do the run-up
then stop the engine to e.g. take a passenger, the water temperature rises
quite high, probably because it is no longer circulating and the thermometer is
after all on the top of the cylinders, where the water should be the hottest.
> I now wonder if it could be the water pump not working properly
Although I am far from an expert, your deduction makes sense to me, Jeff. Good
luck and keep us informed, it may happen to another of us, one day.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com>
The round cowl is really a matter of frontal area drag, not how the air
flows through the cowl. Rare Bear has twice the horsepower of the
winning P-51, but lost again this year.
Paul Seehafer wrote:
>--> 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 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cruise Speeds |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Paul, I have a lot of drag reducing mods on my Model IV and it will easily
cruise at 115 mph.
The mods include Wing Strut fairings, jury strut and horizontal stabilizer
strut fairings, internal wingtip nav lights, hubcaps, fully faired rudder
vertical stabilizer / rudder and horizontal stabilizer / elevator gaps and,
according to recent posts, benefit from a 9-1/2" spinner. I do pay a drag
penalty in the large 21X12X8 tires.
Some of the mods can be seen on Sportflight:
http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1041348095
http://www.sportflight.com/uploads/tip6.jpg
http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1075488689
The last photo also shows the pod covering the video camera mount on the
left wing strut.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.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 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 1/31/04 5:46:20 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffthomas@ntlworld.com writes:
> I seem to be having problems mailing to this list. Last two messages were
> bounced.
>
> Jeff Thomas
>
>
>
Works fine. DO NOT ARCHIVE, DO NOT ARCHIVE, DO NOT ARCHIVE.......
Don Smythe
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: What gives at Skystar? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dcecil3@aol.com
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What gives at Skystar? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dcecil3@aol.com
Anyone know whats going on at Skystar?I asked this question about 3 or 4
weeks ago,during that time I've E-mailed Dave about ten times .I called once and
talked to him and he was going to send me a price sheet , that was last week
never heard anything. I read that they are gearing up to produce a certifide
line of aircraft in the EAA magazine , but you would think they would take care
of parts orders too.I'm not talking about "Chicken Feed" I need all the ribs
to rebuild the right wing, the front spar and insert, false ribs and the rest
of the hardware to install the 912(the firewall mount came with the gusset
welded in backwards , oil tank wouldn't fit, had to fix that-no offer to reduce
the price though) so you can see my temperature is rising and it aint like I
can go to Napa and get the parts. Its great to expand the company, just don't
pull a Stodderd-Hamilton and forget the 2500 customers that already own one
David Cecil
KF 950
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: What gives at Skystar? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dsherburn" <dsherburn@charter.net>
Dcecil...didn't get your question/comment?
----- Original Message -----
From: <Dcecil3@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: What gives at Skystar?
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dcecil3@aol.com
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What gives at Skystar? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dcecil3@aol.com
sorry about the first one bumped the "enter" key
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve & Bonnie Lorenz" <randlekids@lewiscounty.com>
List members,
If you know of anyone interested in a completed Kitfox V (with NSI firewall forward
EA-81 Suburu and CAP 140 prop), I can be contacted off line at 360-497-2245
(Washington state) or email at randlekids@lewiscounty.com. Price recently
reduced.
Steve Lorenz
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: What gives at Skystar? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Arthur Nation <anation@w-link.net>
On Saturday 31 January 2004 11:47, Dcecil3@aol.com wrote:
Dave,
I, and many others, have been asking this question for 18 months. Still short
many items and the total is still nearly $17,000. No communications from them
and little else.
I would be interested to see if the come back with a response.
Arthur
Tacoma, WA
do not archive
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dcecil3@aol.com
>
> Anyone know whats going on at Skystar?I asked this question about 3 or 4
> weeks ago,during that time I've E-mailed Dave about ten times .I called
> once and talked to him and he was going to send me a price sheet , that was
> last week never heard anything. I read that they are gearing up to produce
> a certifide line of aircraft in the EAA magazine , but you would think
> they would take care of parts orders too.I'm not talking about "Chicken
> Feed" I need all the ribs to rebuild the right wing, the front spar and
> insert, false ribs and the rest of the hardware to install the 912(the
> firewall mount came with the gusset welded in backwards , oil tank wouldn't
> fit, had to fix that-no offer to reduce the price though) so you can see my
> temperature is rising and it aint like I can go to Napa and get the parts.
> Its great to expand the company, just don't pull a Stodderd-Hamilton and
> forget the 2500 customers that already own one
>
> David Cecil
> KF 950
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compas sensor in wing tip |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Hi Scott,
Sorry for late reply, but much (to much) to do.
I work quite often with this "kind" of questions for my company, you'll
know the MEL (minimum equipment list for aircraft's) and questions like
that.
If I know- and have time, it is just a pleasure to give some references.
Cheers,
Torgeir.
Scott McClintock wrote:
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock <scott_mcclintock@dot.state.ak.us>
>
> Torgeir,
> Thanks for expanding on what I had mentioned to Jeff last week.
> I have been working at our local FSS part-time. Part of my duties has been to
> become more acquainted with the F.A.R.'s and A.I.M.'s.
> I really did not want to get into a "pissing match" on this subject, but I knew
> Jeff (others) were incorrect. Thanks for taking the time to dig a little deeper.
> I just completed my annual inspection and re-calibrated my compass as part
> of the inspection.
> Scott
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
> Torgeir Mortensen wrote:
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
> >
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > I must comment this one! Our experimental aircraft is operated as a
> > "standard aircraft" AFTER the "test period".
> >
> > I.E. You can fly the same routes, same altitudes and SAME rules as
> > "standard aircraft" ( C-192, Piper Ch. 140 etc.)
> >
> > All of the above is operating according to FAR Part 91, here you'll find
> > anything -even, the limitation during the "test period" for an
> > experimental aircraft.
> >
> > OK. Here is just a little of FAR part 91:
> >
> > Sec. 91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S.
> > airworthiness
> > certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.
> >
> > (a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(3) and (e) of this
> > section, no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a
> > standard
> > category U.S. airworthiness certificate in any operation described in
> > paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section unless that aircraft
> > contains the
> > instruments and equipment specified in those paragraphs (or
> > FAA-approved
> > equivalents) for that type of operation, and those instruments and
> > items of
> > equipment are in operable condition.
> > (b) Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the
> > following
> > instruments and equipment are required:
> > (1) Airspeed indicator.
> > (2) Altimeter.
> > (3) Magnetic direction indicator.
> > (4) Tachometer for each engine.
> > (5) Oil pressure gauge for each engine using pressure system.
> > (6) Temperature gauge for each liquid-cooled engine.
> > (7) Oil temperature gauge for each air-cooled engine.
> > (8) Manifold pressure gauge for each altitude engine.
> > (9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank.
> > (10) Landing gear position indicator, if the aircraft has a
> > retractable
> > landing gear.
> > (11) For small civil airplanes certificated after March 11, 1996, in
> > accordance with part 23 of this chapter, an approved aviation red or
> > aviation
> > white anticollision light system. In the event of failure of any light
> > of the
> > anticollision light system, operation of the aircraft may continue to
> > a
> > location where repairs or replacement can be made.
> >
> > Also, in my EAA manual the check list include the compass and the above
> > instruments.
> >
> > Did you know that the compass is mandatory to be checked every second
> > year?
> >
> > (If you think this is bad, -well, the certified "IFR AC's" or a
> > commercially (VFR operated) has to do this every year!)
> >
> > For a two stroke water cooled engine, water temperature indicator is
> > required. For an air cooled two stroke the cyl. temp indicator is
> > required.
> >
> > As you have the same rights as standard aircraft's, you must gratify
> > same "instrument standard" as "standard aircraft", logical isn't..
> >
> > In this case we are talking about VFR...
> >
> > Well, here is a link to "FAR part 91":
> >
> > http://www.safetydata.com/far-91.htm
> >
> > Torgeir.
> >
> > Rick wrote:
> > >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
> > >
> > > OK Guys lets get an independent among us to call the EAA and get an answer.
> > > I did this some time ago. You do not have to have a compass in an
> > > experimental VFR aircraft. Please post the response for all to see. You may
> > > want, need, like or are use to but don't have to, have one.
> > >
> > > Rick
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of dmorisse
> > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Compas sensor in wing tip
> > >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dmorisse" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> > >
> > > I've got an electronic compass by Richie that has always been a problem
> > > because I have the fluxgate in the baggage area where it's affected each
> > > time I put something back there with any metal. I've often considered
> > > installing in a wing tip, but was reluctant to do so because of the flapping
> > > inertia during travel through turbulence. The sensor has a moving part in
> > > it that seems would be sensitive to a lot of bumping around. Is this an
> > > issue or should I just install it in the wing tip? Of course it would
> > > require getting an extention cable from Richie, but I don't think that it
> > > would be a problem. Any opinions?
> > > Darrel
> > >
> > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons"
> > > <noel@blueskyaviation.net>
> > > >
> > > > John,
> > > >
> > > > You are required by the FAA to have a magnetic compass, so I put one in
> > > the
> > > > normal spot. The Dynon has one too and you will have to mount the
> > > fluxgate
> > > > out in the wing tip way away from metal.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > > > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> > > > kerrjohna@comcast.net
> > > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Dynon Avionics EFIS D10
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
> > > >
> > > > Noel, what have you done for magnetic compass when using the dynon? Do
Not
> > > > Archive.
> > > >
> > > > John Kerr
> > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons"
> > > > > <noel@blueskyaviation.net>
> > > > >
> > > > > Jimmy,
> > > > >
> > > > > I was actually one of the first 10 or so customers to get the instrument
> > > > in
> > > > > and flying. I have installed the Dynon in three panels now, one plug
> > > and
> > > > > play the other two were aircraft (RV-6A and RV-9A) that I built have
> > > test
> > > > > flown. The only thing I can say is WOW. There will be nothing you can
> > > do
> > > > > in a Kitfox to saturate it, or gray the screen, it only takes a few
> > > > seconds
> > > > > for it to catch up. (Big statement, I'm sure someone can but most are
> > > > smart
> > > > > enough not to try). I have done stall turns, spins, aileron rolls,
> > > loops,
> > > > > Cuban eights, -g's. and only once have I saturated the unit, but I was
> > > > > trying!
> > > > >
> > > > > 1.Light
> > > > > 2.replaces your blind encoder
> > > > > 3.has it's own back up power internally
> > > > > 4.the company is wonderful to work with. You call about a
> > > > question and
> > > > > you
> > > > > get it answered.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I like the belt and suspenders so I always add an airspeed and altimeter
> > > > > next to it but you will find that the information is much easier to read
> > > > on
> > > > > the Dynon and you will not look at the others.
> > > > >
> > > > > For the ultimate check out Grand Rapids Tech's new EFIS that integrates
> > > > with
> > > > > there EIS and a GPS.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > >
> > > > > Noel Simmons
> > > > > Blue Sky Aviation, Inc.
> > > > > Phone & Fax: 406-538-6574
> > > > > noel@blueskyaviation.net <mailto:noel@blueskyaviation.net>
> > > > > www.blueskyaviation.net <http://www.blueskyaviation.net>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > > > > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jimmie
> > > > > Blackwell
> > > > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Dynon Avionics EFIS D10
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell"
> > > > <jablackwell@ev1.net>
> > > > >
> > > > > List
> > > > >
> > > > > I noted a product in the last issue of Kitplanes that is new to me and
> > > was
> > > > > wondering if anyone on the list has tested this instrument. It is on
> > > page
> > > > > 31 one of the February issue of Kitplanes. If it does what they say
it
> > > > sure
> > > > > would save a lot of instrument panel space and possibly weight as it
> > > > > provides an attitude indicator, airspeed, altitude, compass, turn rate,
> > > > > slip/skid ball, clock, gmeter, vertical speed and voltmeter. All this
> > > on
> > > > > about a 3" x 4" screen.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Message 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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Lowell,
Thank you and everyone else for some real interesting subjects lately.
I am not flying yet and have been wondering if my 1600' strip at 4400
feet elevation would feel tight. It doesn't sound like it should.
Flying Low and exploring has always been more fun to me than flying fast
high. Yeah, that's flying, but....
I think 115 is very good with those large tires. I have large tires too
and have been wondering what the penalty would be.
Randy - Series 5/7 912S This spring?????
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cruise Speeds
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Paul, I have a lot of drag reducing mods on my Model IV and it will
easily
cruise at 115 mph.
The mods include Wing Strut fairings, jury strut and horizontal
stabilizer
strut fairings, internal wingtip nav lights, hubcaps, fully faired
rudder
vertical stabilizer / rudder and horizontal stabilizer / elevator gaps
and,
according to recent posts, benefit from a 9-1/2" spinner. I do pay a
drag
penalty in the large 21X12X8 tires.
Some of the mods can be seen on Sportflight:
http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1041348
095
http://www.sportflight.com/uploads/tip6.jpg
http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1075488
689
The last photo also shows the pod covering the video camera mount on the
left wing strut.
Lowell
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Hi Folks,
You've just touched my favorite theme. :-)
Well, We all sure- have different motivations for streamlining our
aircraft's, even our "draggy" Foxes. :)
Some like to have "a little" more speed, others a lesser "fuel bill"
(like me, we pay approx. 5 US$ pr. gallon- for ordinary 95 octane
petrol).
Other again just like to see "how good she can be"- just for the
aviation experience... :)
For me, the streamlining is very "fun" as well. As you can measure the
improvement -or no improvement at all, after the "modification".
(For the "old" Fox models, there is a "few" thing you can do to lessen
the drag, -but all this is in the archive. Another thing, not to forget,
- is the induced drag due to lift.)
Since this topics is about "front end drag" and round cowl, have a look
at those "real" inventors at the NASA site.
Here is the link:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter1.html#Chapt1-28
Interesting, isn't it ?
Regards
Torgeir.
John Larsen wrote:
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com>
>
> The round cowl is really a matter of frontal area drag, not how the air
> flows through the cowl. Rare Bear has twice the horsepower of the
> winning P-51, but lost again this year.
>
> Paul Seehafer wrote:
>
> >--> 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 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: Engine choice - Drag Producers. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
I'll support you in that theme Torgier,
I just like efficiency and the fun of making things
"better". That is not for everyone, I understand.
Some don't even like building planes??? Aaee?
I have read that NACA info before. A 19-20 mph
increase at those speeds is very significant. A
minimum of 10% improvement in speed, or more in range
- or less in cost, is pretty good. That is why I hope
to be able to do some half-way accurate comparisons
between my plane before and after mods are added to
see what each is "worth". Right now, without any
speed mods, N210F hits a wall at 90-95kts.
Who gets credit for saying something like, "In theory,
theory and practice are the same, but in practice,
theory and practice are not necessarily the same?"
Was that you Paul F? Well, here is to test results.
Other than the standard things we all have discussed,
I am wondering if there isn't a lot of drag occuring
over the turtledeck area. Mine rumbles some in flight
indicating turbulence there. Later I plan to tuft
test that area to see if it is the turtle deck area or
the strakes causing the problem. Maybe someone has
already looked into this? It might help to have VG's
over the front windscreen, but then the extra lift
generated might further stress the rib/windscreen
attachments. Some have had them come apart already.
Kurt S. S-5 (with all of 2 flt hours on it due to
inclement wx and work.)
--- Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> You've just touched my favorite theme. :-)
> Well, We all sure- have different motivations for
> streamlining our aircraft's, even our "draggy"
Foxes. :)
__________________________________
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: "John Banes" <johnbanes@adelphia.net>
I had to grind away a portion of one "ear" for clearance. Also since one of
the long bolts that holds the starter together could not be removed or
rotated out of the way I had to dent the exhaust tube from the rear
cylinder. This allowed only an 1/8" clearnace.
John Banes
Series 912S with HD starter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Len
Shorethose
Subject: Kitfox-List: 912S Starter
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Len Shorethose"
<TooLowTerrain@comcast.net>
Hello List,
I was just wondering if anyone has any experience yet with the new high
torque starter for the 912S that Rotax is recommending.
I am considering replacing mine on my 2000 vintage Series 5, but Skystar has
advised me that it won't fit the Series 5 with the bump cowl. (The bump cowl
is not the problem..it's the engine mount that is a tight fit.) But
Lockwood in Florida is advising that the starter will indeed fit. So I
don't know what to believe just yet. So I am turning to the List to
hopefully find an answer.
Thanks for any responses.
Len Shorethose
Series 5 912S
Message 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: | Compas sensor in wing tip |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
You are quoting from the wrong part of the book. Dang, Guess I am going to
have to get the section. How about this. If my opinion is wrong I will shut
up, if it isn't everyone can chip in and buy me a new remote sensor compass.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Torgeir
Mortensen
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Compas sensor in wing tip
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Hi Scott,
Sorry for late reply, but much (to much) to do.
I work quite often with this "kind" of questions for my company, you'll
know the MEL (minimum equipment list for aircraft's) and questions like
that.
If I know- and have time, it is just a pleasure to give some references.
Cheers,
Torgeir.
Scott McClintock wrote:
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock
<scott_mcclintock@dot.state.ak.us>
>
> Torgeir,
> Thanks for expanding on what I had mentioned to Jeff last week.
> I have been working at our local FSS part-time. Part of my duties has been
to
> become more acquainted with the F.A.R.'s and A.I.M.'s.
> I really did not want to get into a "pissing match" on this subject, but I
knew
> Jeff (others) were incorrect. Thanks for taking the time to dig a little
deeper.
> I just completed my annual inspection and re-calibrated my compass as part
> of the inspection.
> Scott
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
> Torgeir Mortensen wrote:
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen
<torgemor@online.no>
> >
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > I must comment this one! Our experimental aircraft is operated as a
> > "standard aircraft" AFTER the "test period".
> >
> > I.E. You can fly the same routes, same altitudes and SAME rules as
> > "standard aircraft" ( C-192, Piper Ch. 140 etc.)
> >
> > All of the above is operating according to FAR Part 91, here you'll find
> > anything -even, the limitation during the "test period" for an
> > experimental aircraft.
> >
> > OK. Here is just a little of FAR part 91:
> >
> > Sec. 91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S.
> > airworthiness
> > certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.
> >
> > (a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(3) and (e) of this
> > section, no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a
> > standard
> > category U.S. airworthiness certificate in any operation described in
> > paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section unless that aircraft
> > contains the
> > instruments and equipment specified in those paragraphs (or
> > FAA-approved
> > equivalents) for that type of operation, and those instruments and
> > items of
> > equipment are in operable condition.
> > (b) Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the
> > following
> > instruments and equipment are required:
> > (1) Airspeed indicator.
> > (2) Altimeter.
> > (3) Magnetic direction indicator.
> > (4) Tachometer for each engine.
> > (5) Oil pressure gauge for each engine using pressure system.
> > (6) Temperature gauge for each liquid-cooled engine.
> > (7) Oil temperature gauge for each air-cooled engine.
> > (8) Manifold pressure gauge for each altitude engine.
> > (9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank.
> > (10) Landing gear position indicator, if the aircraft has a
> > retractable
> > landing gear.
> > (11) For small civil airplanes certificated after March 11, 1996, in
> > accordance with part 23 of this chapter, an approved aviation red or
> > aviation
> > white anticollision light system. In the event of failure of any light
> > of the
> > anticollision light system, operation of the aircraft may continue to
> > a
> > location where repairs or replacement can be made.
> >
> > Also, in my EAA manual the check list include the compass and the above
> > instruments.
> >
> > Did you know that the compass is mandatory to be checked every second
> > year?
> >
> > (If you think this is bad, -well, the certified "IFR AC's" or a
> > commercially (VFR operated) has to do this every year!)
> >
> > For a two stroke water cooled engine, water temperature indicator is
> > required. For an air cooled two stroke the cyl. temp indicator is
> > required.
> >
> > As you have the same rights as standard aircraft's, you must gratify
> > same "instrument standard" as "standard aircraft", logical isn't..
> >
> > In this case we are talking about VFR...
> >
> > Well, here is a link to "FAR part 91":
> >
> > http://www.safetydata.com/far-91.htm
> >
> > Torgeir.
> >
> > Rick wrote:
> > >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
> > >
> > > OK Guys lets get an independent among us to call the EAA and get an
answer.
> > > I did this some time ago. You do not have to have a compass in an
> > > experimental VFR aircraft. Please post the response for all to see.
You may
> > > want, need, like or are use to but don't have to, have one.
> > >
> > > Rick
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of dmorisse
> > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Compas sensor in wing tip
> > >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dmorisse"
<morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> > >
> > > I've got an electronic compass by Richie that has always been a
problem
> > > because I have the fluxgate in the baggage area where it's affected
each
> > > time I put something back there with any metal. I've often considered
> > > installing in a wing tip, but was reluctant to do so because of the
flapping
> > > inertia during travel through turbulence. The sensor has a moving
part in
> > > it that seems would be sensitive to a lot of bumping around. Is this
an
> > > issue or should I just install it in the wing tip? Of course it would
> > > require getting an extention cable from Richie, but I don't think that
it
> > > would be a problem. Any opinions?
> > > Darrel
> > >
> > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons"
> > > <noel@blueskyaviation.net>
> > > >
> > > > John,
> > > >
> > > > You are required by the FAA to have a magnetic compass, so I put one
in
> > > the
> > > > normal spot. The Dynon has one too and you will have to mount the
> > > fluxgate
> > > > out in the wing tip way away from metal.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > > > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> > > > kerrjohna@comcast.net
> > > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Dynon Avionics EFIS D10
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
> > > >
> > > > Noel, what have you done for magnetic compass when using the dynon?
Do Not
> > > > Archive.
> > > >
> > > > John Kerr
> > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons"
> > > > > <noel@blueskyaviation.net>
> > > > >
> > > > > Jimmy,
> > > > >
> > > > > I was actually one of the first 10 or so customers to get the
instrument
> > > > in
> > > > > and flying. I have installed the Dynon in three panels now, one
plug
> > > and
> > > > > play the other two were aircraft (RV-6A and RV-9A) that I built
have
> > > test
> > > > > flown. The only thing I can say is WOW. There will be nothing
you can
> > > do
> > > > > in a Kitfox to saturate it, or gray the screen, it only takes a
few
> > > > seconds
> > > > > for it to catch up. (Big statement, I'm sure someone can but most
are
> > > > smart
> > > > > enough not to try). I have done stall turns, spins, aileron
rolls,
> > > loops,
> > > > > Cuban eights, -g's. and only once have I saturated the unit, but I
was
> > > > > trying!
> > > > >
> > > > > 1.Light
> > > > > 2.replaces your blind encoder
> > > > > 3.has it's own back up power internally
> > > > > 4.the company is wonderful to work with. You call about a
> > > > question and
> > > > > you
> > > > > get it answered.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I like the belt and suspenders so I always add an airspeed and
altimeter
> > > > > next to it but you will find that the information is much easier
to read
> > > > on
> > > > > the Dynon and you will not look at the others.
> > > > >
> > > > > For the ultimate check out Grand Rapids Tech's new EFIS that
integrates
> > > > with
> > > > > there EIS and a GPS.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > >
> > > > > Noel Simmons
> > > > > Blue Sky Aviation, Inc.
> > > > > Phone & Fax: 406-538-6574
> > > > > noel@blueskyaviation.net <mailto:noel@blueskyaviation.net>
> > > > > www.blueskyaviation.net <http://www.blueskyaviation.net>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > > > > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jimmie
> > > > > Blackwell
> > > > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Dynon Avionics EFIS D10
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell"
> > > > <jablackwell@ev1.net>
> > > > >
> > > > > List
> > > > >
> > > > > I noted a product in the last issue of Kitplanes that is new to me
and
> > > was
> > > > > wondering if anyone on the list has tested this instrument. It is
on
> > > page
> > > > > 31 one of the February issue of Kitplanes. If it does what they
say it
> > > > sure
> > > > > would save a lot of instrument panel space and possibly weight as
it
> > > > > provides an attitude indicator, airspeed, altitude, compass, turn
rate,
> > > > > slip/skid ball, clock, gmeter, vertical speed and voltmeter. All
this
> > > on
> > > > > about a 3" x 4" screen.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Torgeir,
You hit upon a very important element of speed and efficiency, "induced
drag due to lift". Heavy airplanes cost more to fly and they fly slower
than light airplanes for this reason. Build it light (read, very light)
and do all the streaming mods that work even a little bit. Streamlining
mods have a compounding effect on each other and those who do them all
correct will have a faster airplane than their buddy who leaves out a few or
does not make the mods correctly.
The other item I might mention is to experiment with the balance of the
aircraft. A nose heavy airplane will create a lot of induced drag just to
keep the airplane flying . If the airplane is balanced the elevator will
fly streamlined with little induced drag to keep the nose up.
The wing creates a "lot" of extra drag with a nose heavy airplane. Of
course you know all these things but I thought it would not hurt to repeat a
good thing!
Can you-all see the light of day yet? Give us a report on how short your
days are, or conversely, how long your nights are!
Vic
34 degrees North Latitude
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor@online.no>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice - Drag Producers.
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
>
> You've just touched my favorite theme. :-)
> Well, We all sure- have different motivations for streamlining our
> aircraft's, even our "draggy" Foxes. :)
>
> Some like to have "a little" more speed, others a lesser "fuel bill"
> (like me, we pay approx. 5 US$ pr. gallon- for ordinary 95 octane
> petrol).
>
> Other again just like to see "how good she can be"- just for the
> aviation experience... :)
>
> For me, the streamlining is very "fun" as well. As you can measure the
> improvement -or no improvement at all, after the "modification".
>
> (For the "old" Fox models, there is a "few" thing you can do to lessen
> the drag, -but all this is in the archive. Another thing, not to forget,
> - is the induced drag due to lift.)
>
>
> Since this topics is about "front end drag" and round cowl, have a look
> at those "real" inventors at the NASA site.
>
>
> Here is the link:
>
> http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter1.html#Chapt1-28
>
> Interesting, isn't it ?
>
> Regards
>
>
> Torgeir.
>
>
> John Larsen wrote:
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com>
> >
> > The round cowl is really a matter of frontal area drag, not how the air
> > flows through the cowl. Rare Bear has twice the horsepower of the
> > winning P-51, but lost again this year.
> >
> > Paul Seehafer wrote:
> >
> > >--> 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 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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John E. King " <kingjohn@erols.com>
This is a thread that has popped up on another list. I though it may
be of interest to those on the Kitfox List.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
-------------------------------
This was posted on the Biplane Hangar Mailing list recently:
Bret - Biplane Hangar http://www.gf24.de/biplane/
Gang,
Had a brake fire on an RV-8A last weekend. Tidy combination of
operator error and design issues, much of which is specific to the 8A
and/or castering nosewheel, steer-with-the-brakes airplanes in general.
However, research did turn up a few items perhaps everyone should know.
The fire started after an overheated caliper leaked fluid on a hot
disk. The fluid flashed and lit the resin in the fiberglass wheel pant,
as well as the tire sidewall. The brake worked fine, with only slightly
higher pedal pressure required even when on fire.
I've posted a photo to the vault (yep, a bystander had a digital
camera). In the photo, I'm holding pedal pressure while shutting down
for the fire crew. Note the fire on the ground under the pant, believed
to be fluid and dripping resin. I don't recall any additional pedal
travel.
When something like this happens I get curious. Why did the seal
leak at some temperature well below a failure temperature for the rest
of the brake? And why did the fluid catch fire?
Fast forward: It turns out the Cleveland piston seal for the
little 30-9 caliper is an ordinary MS28775-218 nitrile o-ring.
Nitrile's temperature rating is - 65F to +275 F. We found the seal to
be brittle and flaking when we dismantled the caliper. A caliper seal
with a 275 F temp limit is below automotive standards, but that's
another story.
As for fluid, Cleveland's tech manual specifies either Mil-H-5606
or Mil-H-83282 as acceptable. Both are listed in AC-43 and the A&P
texts. Turns out that Mil-H-83282 was created because the military was
tired of setting it's airplanes on fire. Mil-H-5606 is the standard red
hydraulic fluid sold by Spruce, Wicks, Chief, etc. It is a petroleum
base, and turns out to have a very low flash point. The Mil-H-83282 is
also red, and compatible with 5606 fluid as well as seals created for
5606. However, it is a synthetic, with much higher flash and burn
points, and is self-extinguishing when removed from the ignition source.
You can download complete specs for Aeroshell Fluid 41 (Mil-H-5606)
and Aeroshell Fluid 31 (Mil-H-83282) at:
http://193.113.209.166/aeroshell/aeroshellhydraulicfluids.pdf
Note the flash points of the two fluids. Aeroshell 41 is 104 C,
which is only 219 F. Aeroshell 31 is 237 C, or 458 F.
A flash point of 219 F means that when a Cleveland caliper seal
fails at something above 275, the fluid is already hot enough to light
when it hits a hot disk and vaporizes inside the pant. Makes for an
interesting combination.
Live and learn. I always assumed standard "mil-spec red brake
fluid" was something special, and I doubt I was alone in this
assumption. It's not. It's just another one of those "always done it
that way" things prevalent with light airplanes. Note that the Shell
literature declines to even refer to it as brake fluid.
Spruce, etc, doesn't sell Mil-H-83282 fluid, but they should. I've
already ordered a gallon of Fluid 31 from the local Shell distributor.
Since the old and new fluids are compatible, switching is as easy as
draining the old, flush with new, refill, and bleed.
Let's be careful out there.
<Dan
on 1/29/04 4:59 PM, PullSomeGs@aol.com at PullSomeGs@aol.com wrote:
A coworker has asked me to gather any information on wheel pant
fires for his friend who's Extra burned. Apparently he had a fuel
drain that exited on the wheel pant, which somehow caught fire. He
is having trouble with his insurance company and wants to have some
other cases of such an event to help his case. Seems like I remember
this happening to someone a few years ago. Any information is
appreciated!
Thanks,
Skip
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice - Drag Producers.
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
> The other item I might mention is to experiment with the balance of the
> aircraft. A nose heavy airplane will create a lot of induced drag just to
> keep the airplane flying . If the airplane is balanced the elevator will
> fly streamlined with little induced drag to keep the nose up.
> The wing creates a "lot" of extra drag with a nose heavy airplane. Of
> course you know all these things but I thought it would not hurt to repeat
a
> good thing!
This is a really significant item. When Paul asked about the speedster, the
one item I forgot to mention in the Speedster option package was the
electric trim tab on the elevator. I also forgot to mention that I have
that mod on my airplane. The Kitfoxes through the Model IV all used the
flaperons for nose down trim. Horizontal stabilizer position would give a
nose high tendency in level flight and the flaperons essentially altered
wing shape to give a semblance of level trim, but that came with a
significant drag penalty. I have experimented with trimming with flaperons
with the electric trim tab in neutral and, as I recall, the penalty was in
the neighborhood of 5 mph or so. The speedster also had a fully faired
airfoil shaped vertical tail.
Lowell
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|