Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:51 AM - Re: Cruise Speeds (Clifford Begnaud)
2. 06:04 AM - MK7 Cross wind limits (Kitfox)
3. 06:04 AM - Re: Compas sensor in wing tip (Torgeir Mortensen)
4. 06:33 AM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. (Torgeir Mortensen)
5. 07:16 AM - Altimeter needed (Jay Fabian)
6. 07:35 AM - Re: Cruise Speeds (jareds)
7. 08:17 AM - Re: Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems (jimshumaker)
8. 08:24 AM - Northwest Florida (Roger Rockwell)
9. 08:37 AM - fuel system (Bill Pleso)
10. 09:09 AM - Fuel system part 2 (Bill Pleso)
11. 10:14 AM - Re: fuel system (jareds)
12. 10:30 AM - Re: fuel system (Vic Jacko)
13. 11:23 AM - Re: fuel system (kurt schrader)
14. 11:44 AM - Re: gas/fuel tanks (Clem Nichols)
15. 01:58 PM - Re: Cruise Speeds (Lowell Fitt)
16. 03:06 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems (Michel Verheughe)
17. 03:08 PM - Stitts fabric (John Balunda)
18. 03:10 PM - Re: MK7 Cross wind limits (Michel Verheughe)
19. 03:19 PM - envelopes (Bill Pleso)
20. 05:20 PM - Re: envelopes (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
21. 05:35 PM - Re: envelopes (Jimmie Blackwell)
22. 08:11 PM - Re: envelopes (kurt schrader)
23. 08:12 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems (jimshumaker)
24. 08:24 PM - Re: MK7 Cross wind limits (jimshumaker)
25. 08:25 PM - Re: MK7 Cross wind limits (kurt schrader)
26. 08:26 PM - Re: envelopes (jimshumaker)
27. 08:36 PM - Re: Re: gas/fuel tanks (jimshumaker)
28. 11:22 PM - Re: envelopes (RiteAngle3@aol.com)
29. 11:48 PM - Official Usage Guideline [Please Read] [Monthly Posting] (Matt Dralle)
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: Cruise Speeds |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Randy,
If you have no obstacles it should feel ok. On a hot summer day, fully
loaded, any trees or other obstacles would be a serious cause for concern.
Especially, if you had any kind of tailwind.
In any case, with no tailwind, I see no reason why you wouldn't break ground
in under 1600', even fully loaded on the hottest day. Of course, the only
way to know for sure is to try ;-).
I would strongly recommend doing your initial test flights from an airport
with lots more runway! If you had an engine out or some other problem that
required an emergency landing, 1600' would be risky when you are not
accustomed to your new plane.
I'm sure you have seen the many posts here over the years of people having
trouble getting their new kitfox down in a short distance. It is always an
issue of approaching too fast. Having flown with you, I suspect that you'll
have less trouble than most, especially considering your glider experience.
Randy, if you want to get some Kitfox time before flying your new plane,
give me a holler. I'm always looking for a weekend outing and would love to
see your new digs.
Best Regards,
Cliff
>
> 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
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> 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 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: | MK7 Cross wind limits |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kitfox" <Kitfox@chrisbates.co.uk>
Can someone give me an idea fo the crosswind limits of the 7 on the ground
and on landing.
Thanks,
Chris UK
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: Compas sensor in wing tip |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Rick,
Here is the section, you can see for yourself, here is everything you
might like to know about F.A.R.
Here is a link to FAA about FAR regulations:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet
Here is a link to type cert. for the different group of AC's:
http://www1.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/
Here is the req. for "our" type of aircraft's:
http://www1.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/Special_Airworthiness_Certificates.htm
Here is our type, the "experimental" group:
http://www1.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/Special_Airworthiness_Certificates_Experimental_Category_General.htm
If you download this document (I did it today -and it contain 285 pages
(!), you'll find the connection to F.A.R. 91:
Remember to use the whole line below in the subject field for your
browser.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/467ae87b93de461085256a350075b076/95d58c1a6db9705886256b37005ff944/$FILE/8130.2DC3.pdf
Here is the actual
Document:
8130.2D Change 3 Incorporated
At page 134, find para. 9.
(9) Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 91.205
must be inspected
and maintained in accordance with the requirements of part 91. Any
maintenance or inspection of this
equipment must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records.
>>> This document is pointing directly to F.A.R. part 91: 91.205 <<<
Hope this help.....
Torgeir.
Rick wrote:
>
> --> 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
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> 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 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: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Vic,
Yes, this is the wall we'll hit sooner or later. :)
The C.G. trim relations is also a good point to observe. In our
Kitfoxe's it is easy to see the tail, have a look at the tail when
flying. If the elevator is straight aligned there is less drag from the
tail, if the tail need to lift or pull there is more drag from the tail.
The kitfox is a great plane to manipulate during flight, this due to the
flapperon (or- did you said trimeron?). As we can change the center of
lift- a little, as well as the main wings angle, we have a good tool to
adjust for the optimal performance. This is "one" of the best arguments
to keep the AC in balance.
The old "Avid" profile is a typical low speed profile, and show a huge
amount of drag if overspeeded.
Torgeir.
Vic Jacko wrote:
>
> --> 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>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> 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 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: | Altimeter needed |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jay Fabian" <experimental208nd@comcast.net>
Hi List,
I am starting to do my annual , and it just so happens that my altimeters barometer
does not work right now. The vent line is not clogged.
I wanted to know if anyone has an instrument that might include ALT, RATE OF
CLIMB, BARO, and maybe some more all in one, and what the cost would be?
Thanks
Jay Fabian
4-1200 912ul
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: jareds <jareds@verizon.net>
Lowell,
Thats really impressive. There is hope for my model IV yet!
Wing strut,spinner, and some covering on the landing gear is all i've
put on so far with a 582.
I'm only at 90-95. I'll try some of these.
Did you test and evaulate which had the biggest effect?
Lowell Fitt wrote:
>--> 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>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
>Micheal
Is the engine performance differences not opposite in the two paragraphs
below? Or does you engine, in fact, have less power ABOVE 500'?
> > 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.
Sorry to be so late on the reply, flying here in Central California in the
winter is the best time to fly. The air is the clearest and all the hills
are green instead of brown... or Golden as they say.
Jim Shumaker
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: | Northwest Florida |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Roger Rockwell <flkitfox@juno.com>
Are there any KF owners in Northwest Florida/ South Alabama on the list?
I have not been able to get Skystar to answer?
Thanks
Roger
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: "Bill Pleso" <bill77@cox.net>
Builders,
I was looking for some input on my fuel system design. Two obstacle that I
need to overcome is the fact that the engine I'm using has no mechanical pump,
and I'm using an Ellison TBI, so there's no float bowl. I don't want to find
out the hard way how well the Kitfox will do with only gravity feed on the fuel,
so I was planning to use 2 Facet pumps (one on all the time, and one as a
back-up / boost for take-offs and landings). I was going to mount them both
immediately downstream of the header tank. The back-up pump would be switched
on during take-offs & landings. The main pump would have a flow sensor on the
outlet. If the main pump crapped out the flow sensor would turn on the back-up
pump before I had any clue that there was a problem since by then, there would
be a LOT of air to purge from the lines. Just in case there was an electrical
problem, I was going to run the back-up pump from a small motorcycle battery
independant of the main electrical system. I can fly with no power, but
I have to have fuel. What would be the advantages / disadvantages to plumbing
the 2 pumps in series or parallel? I know that even a SMALL motorcycle battery
would add unwanted weight, but I was trying to address all the what-if's and
I don't mind a little extra weight if it's a safety issue. I invite your opinions
on this. It's a lot easier to make changes NOW on paper, rather than later
after the system is installed.
Bill Pleso
Mod IV Classic (Speedster)
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: | Fuel system part 2 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bill Pleso" <bill77@cox.net>
Builders,
Well, after I hit the "Send" button, it dawned on me that instead of a flow
switch, I would probably need a pressure switch, since the Facet pump flows through
whether it is on or not. This would also eliminate having all that air
in the line, even if the main pump quit. I'd still like to hear your input (series
vs parallel, etc.)
Bill Pleso
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: jareds <jareds@verizon.net>
Bill
After a fuel system failure i contemplated a dual system setup with
all the extra plumbing. Automatic Shut off valves to eliminate backflow
or in the case of a broken diaphram with my mechanical pump a valve to
keep fuel from pumping into the crank were all huge considerations. Not
to mention the list consensus at the time was "the more plumbing
.............the more chance for failure"! Personally i never see
plumbing fail so I wouldnt let that discourage you. In the end i opted
for some other precautions and stayed with 1 pump! Even though my tests
for gravity flow only, did not prove to supply even remotely enough fuel
to sustain flight.
I have some old schematics of how i was going to set up my system with 2
electrics if you are interested.
Contact me off line!
Good luck
Jared
Bill Pleso wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bill Pleso" <bill77@cox.net>
>
>Builders,
> I was looking for some input on my fuel system design. Two obstacle that
I need to overcome is the fact that the engine I'm using has no mechanical pump,
and I'm using an Ellison TBI, so there's no float bowl. I don't want to find
out the hard way how well the Kitfox will do with only gravity feed on the
fuel, so I was planning to use 2 Facet pumps (one on all the time, and one as
a back-up / boost for take-offs and landings). I was going to mount them both
immediately downstream of the header tank. The back-up pump would be switched
on during take-offs & landings. The main pump would have a flow sensor on the
outlet. If the main pump crapped out the flow sensor would turn on the back-up
pump before I had any clue that there was a problem since by then, there
would be a LOT of air to purge from the lines. Just in case there was an electrical
problem, I was going to run the back-up pump from a small motorcycle battery
independant of the main electrical system. I c!
>an fly with no power, but I have to have fuel. What would be the advantages /
disadvantages to plumbing the 2 pumps in series or parallel? I know that even
a SMALL motorcycle battery would add unwanted weight, but I was trying to address
all the what-if's and I don't mind a little extra weight if it's a safety
issue. I invite your opinions on this. It's a lot easier to make changes NOW
on paper, rather than later after the system is installed.
>
>Bill Pleso
>Mod IV Classic (Speedster)
>
>
>
>
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: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Bill, I used gravity flow on the Lyc powered 5 now owned by Cliff B. It
uses the Ellison and the Facet pump is used for climb out/ landing only.
I have flown it many times using gravity only for all flight modes with no
problems. Regardless of what system you use make sure you have a fuel
pressure gauge with a tap right before the throttle body so you "always
know you are getting pressure" even if reads 1/4 pound. I also opted to
use a 5# max scale gauge to give a better idea of the pressure available
with gravity only. Good luck!
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: "jareds" <jareds@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: fuel system
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: jareds <jareds@verizon.net>
>
> Bill
> After a fuel system failure i contemplated a dual system setup with
> all the extra plumbing. Automatic Shut off valves to eliminate backflow
> or in the case of a broken diaphram with my mechanical pump a valve to
> keep fuel from pumping into the crank were all huge considerations. Not
> to mention the list consensus at the time was "the more plumbing
> .............the more chance for failure"! Personally i never see
> plumbing fail so I wouldnt let that discourage you. In the end i opted
> for some other precautions and stayed with 1 pump! Even though my tests
> for gravity flow only, did not prove to supply even remotely enough fuel
> to sustain flight.
>
> I have some old schematics of how i was going to set up my system with 2
> electrics if you are interested.
> Contact me off line!
>
> Good luck
>
> Jared
>
> Bill Pleso wrote:
>
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bill Pleso" <bill77@cox.net>
> >
> >Builders,
> > I was looking for some input on my fuel system design. Two obstacle
that I need to overcome is the fact that the engine I'm using has no
mechanical pump, and I'm using an Ellison TBI, so there's no float bowl. I
don't want to find out the hard way how well the Kitfox will do with only
gravity feed on the fuel, so I was planning to use 2 Facet pumps (one on all
the time, and one as a back-up / boost for take-offs and landings). I was
going to mount them both immediately downstream of the header tank. The
back-up pump would be switched on during take-offs & landings. The main
pump would have a flow sensor on the outlet. If the main pump crapped out
the flow sensor would turn on the back-up pump before I had any clue that
there was a problem since by then, there would be a LOT of air to purge from
the lines. Just in case there was an electrical problem, I was going to run
the back-up pump from a small motorcycle battery independant of the main
electrical system. I !
> c!
> >an fly with no power, but I have to have fuel. What would be the
advantages / disadvantages to plumbing the 2 pumps in series or parallel? I
know that even a SMALL motorcycle battery would add unwanted weight, but I
was trying to address all the what-if's and I don't mind a little extra
weight if it's a safety issue. I invite your opinions on this. It's a lot
easier to make changes NOW on paper, rather than later after the system is
installed.
> >
> >Bill Pleso
> >Mod IV Classic (Speedster)
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Bill,
I went with two pumps in series - one pressure at the
header tank and one suction near the engine. Peter G.
has his in parallel and has some excellent pics on his
site. Perhaps he could talk to that installation.
I am using the ATP UltraBat for a backup battery for
one pump and one ignition. I also wired it in so that
I can power the entire aircraft from it for a time, if
needed, after alternator and primary battery failure.
Both batteries are charged off the alternator, so if I
lose the priimary battery only, or have an electrical
fire, the B/U can keep me flying while I isolate the
primary circuits. The UltraBat even allows an
emergency start for me. Total weight for the battery,
charging diode, solinoid, and all wiring is about 6
lbs. An important consideration.
Like you, I wanted the second pump to auto-turn-on via
a pressure sensor, but I haven't found one that works
at about 2psi in fuel. If anyone has a source, I
would like it too. Startup check would be simple.
Turn on the B/U pump and note the pressure. Have an
LED wired in to indicate it is on. Turn on the
primary pump and note the pressure and that the LED
goes out. If all works well, the LED would be your
only indication in flight that you had a pump failure.
I studied the KF accidents before building mine and
learned of one crash that occured on takeoff when a
fuel pump wire connector came undone. Such a small
failure caused serious damage. With the NSI system,
the engine will still put out power on gravity, but
not full power. With the nose up and gravity at its
least, you suddenly get full air and only very limited
fuel. It would lean out and die almost instantly in
my mind. No time to figure it out and restart at
lower power.
With them both on in series, you get a different
pressure than with one on, which could affect mixture
and EGT. In parallel, you only get different flow
available, but you need more plumbing and check valves
in line for B/U protection. Either way works.
Kurt S.
--- Bill Pleso <bill77@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Builders,
> I was looking for some input on my fuel system
> design. Two obstacle that I need to overcome is the
> fact that the engine I'm using has no mechanical
> pump, and I'm using an Ellison TBI, so there's no
> float bowl. I don't want to find out the hard way
> how well the Kitfox will do with only gravity feed
> on the fuel, so I was planning to use 2 Facet pumps
> (one on all the time, and one as a back-up / boost
> for take-offs and landings).
__________________________________
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: gas/fuel tanks |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Regarding the recent discussion about using auto gas in fiberglass/plastic fuel
tanks and how it could destroy the tank, it occurred to me this morning when
I took my Rans S12 up for a spin that I've never seen an ultralight with anything
other than a fiberglass tank, and I've never heard of a leakage problem.
For that matter, the tanks one can purchase at Walmart, etc., that are approved
for carrying gasoline are made of the same material, and I'm reasonably sure
that 99.9 percent of them carry auto fuel instead of 100 LL. Surely it's not
that much of a problem, otherwise someone would have had one dissolve in their
garage and a lawsuit would have ensued. Regarding checking for ethanol/methanol
in auto fuel: Is there any way of doing it other than shaking up a given
volume of water with the gasoline and looking to see if the water level drops
(ie if some of the water is taken up by the alcohol). It occurs to me that this
simple test could lead to the wrong conclusion if the gasoline is already
"saturated" with water. Just something to kick around.
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cruise Speeds |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Not Really, Most of the fairings were added during construction. As I
recall the hubcaps give about 2 mph and the trim tab - eliminating flaperon
trim - adds about 5
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "jareds" <jareds@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cruise Speeds
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: jareds <jareds@verizon.net>
>
> Lowell,
>
> Thats really impressive. There is hope for my model IV yet!
> Wing strut,spinner, and some covering on the landing gear is all i've
> put on so far with a 582.
> I'm only at 90-95. I'll try some of these.
> Did you test and evaulate which had the biggest effect?
>
> Lowell Fitt wrote:
>
> >--> 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>
> >To: <kitfox-list@matronics.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 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: Rotax 582 Engine problems |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
jimshumaker wrote:
> Is the engine performance differences not opposite in the two paragraphs
> below? Or does you engine, in fact, have less power ABOVE 500'?
I don't know if you are asking Jeff or me, Jim, since you include both answers.
Yes, I also noticed that Jeff wrote: "... get higher power..." which
contradicts what he says about the "carb heat effect." I took it as a typo and
understood that if was "less power on take-off."
What I notice is this: I have 800 meters runway, so after 150 meters, I am
airborne and I keep a bit level to build speed before initial climb. During
that time, my RPM is less than it would be if I was to apply full throttle say,
at cruise altitude. I assumed then that it was because what Jeff says about the
air being very hot in the crankcase at that time.
But I am not sure of anything. Remember that I am a rookie, keen to learn but
basically, an ignorant.
Flying in winter is beautiful here too. But right now, we have so much snow
that I can't even get to the hangar, less opening its sliding doors.
Cheers,
Michel
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Balunda" <JohnCA58@pacbell.net>
This message is for Chris Bates
Just wonder if you have got your box of fabric and if all is ok ,
John
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MK7 Cross wind limits |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Kitfox wrote:
> Can someone give me an idea fo the crosswind limits of the 7 on the ground
> and on landing.
I would also like to know what is the limit for the model 3. My theory book
says that if there isn't any specification from the manufacturer, one should
use 0.2 x Vso. It means about 6 knots for me. Not much.
Cheers,
Michel
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bill Pleso" <bill77@cox.net>
Builders,
Well I'm just full of questions today, but I guess everyone is when they first
get started. Has anyone out there tried the presewn envelopes for covering
their planes? I know that they are probably more expensive, but if time is
money, then......
Bill Pleso
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
Builders,
Well I'm just full of questions today, but I guess everyone is when they
first get started. Has anyone out there tried the presewn envelopes for
covering their planes? I know that they are probably more expensive, but if time
is money, then......
Bill Pleso
Bill,
I've always heard to not waste your money on the pre-sewn units. It
doesn't take that long to use the standard flat material.
Don Smythe
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell" <jablackwell@ev1.net>
Bill
I am a new builder and not very experienced. However, my attempts to use
envelope fabric on the rudder, horizontal stabilizer and the elevator of a
Model IV ended up looking pretty bad and taking more time than the roll
fabric. In the end I removed the envelope fabric from these pieces and
reinstalled with roll fabric which I thought was much easier, looked better
and faster to install than all the fussing around with the envelope stuff.
It may be my inexperience that made the envelope tougher to install but, in
the future I will stick with roll fabric.
Good Luck
Jimmie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Pleso" <bill77@cox.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: envelopes
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bill Pleso" <bill77@cox.net>
>
> Builders,
> Well I'm just full of questions today, but I guess everyone is when
they first get started. Has anyone out there tried the presewn envelopes
for covering their planes? I know that they are probably more expensive,
but if time is money, then......
> Bill Pleso
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Bill,
My friend did the envelope and I did the sheet fabric.
Between the two of us, it was easier for me to do a
good job of it. As I remember, he had difficulty
keeping the seams straight and keeping everything
aligned with the envelope. Every touch of the iron or
temperature change tried to move his seams. They
become the priority. If you have the seams tacked
down first and straight, you have to adjust the rest
of the envelope to them and that means different
contraction rates and tauntness. Mine just seemed to
go on easier.
Kurt S. S-5
--- Bill Pleso <bill77@cox.net> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bill Pleso"
> <bill77@cox.net>
>
> Builders,
> Well I'm just full of questions today, but I
> guess everyone is when they first get started. Has
> anyone out there tried the presewn envelopes for
> covering their planes? I know that they are
> probably more expensive, but if time is money,
> then......
> Bill Pleso
__________________________________
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: Rotax 582 Engine problems |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
Michel
Thank you for answering.
I did not see any contradiction in Jeffs logic about getting LESS power
ABOVE 500'. He seemed to say that is how long it takes to heat up the air
in the crankcase so that it acts like Carb heat. You seemed to describe the
opposite situation. I am sure he did not have a typo in there and I
suspected you may have assumed one.
Jim Shumaker
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> jimshumaker wrote:
> > Is the engine performance differences not opposite in the two paragraphs
> > below? Or does you engine, in fact, have less power ABOVE 500'?
>
> I don't know if you are asking Jeff or me, Jim, since you include both
answers.
> Yes, I also noticed that Jeff wrote: "... get higher power..." which
> contradicts what he says about the "carb heat effect." I took it as a typo
and
> understood that if was "less power on take-off."
> What I notice is this: I have 800 meters runway, so after 150 meters, I am
> airborne and I keep a bit level to build speed before initial climb.
During
> that time, my RPM is less than it would be if I was to apply full throttle
say,
> at cruise altitude. I assumed then that it was because what Jeff says
about the
> air being very hot in the crankcase at that time.
>
> But I am not sure of anything. Remember that I am a rookie, keen to learn
but
> basically, an ignorant.
>
> Flying in winter is beautiful here too. But right now, we have so much
snow
> that I can't even get to the hangar, less opening its sliding doors.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
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: MK7 Cross wind limits |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
Michel
I've landed in 19 mph steady at 90 degrees. Had to make a left 270 degree
turn to exit the right taxiway. The Young Eagle with me was probably
puzzled by what I was doing but it was his first ride in a airplane so he
didn't even know to ask what was up.
I've landed in 30 gusting to 40 at 30 degrees...but then I couldn't get out
of the airplane until help came to keep it from blowing away while I stepped
out. Fortunately, there was a ramp that angled to the runway so I took off
at the hold short line and then flew the taxi line to line up with the
runway and climbed out down the centerline. No complaints though, the next
leg of my trip was straight down wind. Yes a Model III can cruise at 120
mph ground speed.
Jim Shumaker
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: MK7 Cross wind limits
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> Kitfox wrote:
> > Can someone give me an idea fo the crosswind limits of the 7 on the
ground
> > and on landing.
>
> I would also like to know what is the limit for the model 3. My theory
book
> says that if there isn't any specification from the manufacturer, one
should
> use 0.2 x Vso. It means about 6 knots for me. Not much.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
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: MK7 Cross wind limits |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
This is all I could find,
My 2002 KitFox pilots guide says 15 knots crosswind.
No model specified there. To quote p 60 of the guide:
The KitFox's powerful rudder permits a much higher
bank angle, while enabling centerline alignment;
thus the ability to deal with up to 15 knot
crosswinds."
This of course comes after the pilots experience and
proficiency to handle the wind and plane. When I got
my tailwheel signoff, my instructor made the last
landing back at his home field. Winds were gusting to
25 mph, mostly crosswind. Way beyond my limits, but
he was right there on top of it in his KF IV. We were
heavy of course. About 1400#. It can be done, but
not something I would be comfortable in myself.
With 25 mph headwinds, you could probably land in the
runway width and be done with it. Getting permission
is another matter.
Kurt S.
--- Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe
> <michel@online.no>
>
> Kitfox wrote:
> > Can someone give me an idea fo the crosswind
> limits of the 7 on the ground
> > and on landing.
>
> I would also like to know what is the limit for the
> model 3. My theory book
> says that if there isn't any specification from the
> manufacturer, one should
> use 0.2 x Vso. It means about 6 knots for me. Not
> much.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
__________________________________
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
Bill
The procedures for covering the rivets, and glueing the fabric in place
might prevent the envelope from being feasible. These plans fly
considerably faster than the ultalights that method is generally used for.
Jim Shumaker
----- Original Message -----
From: <AlbertaIV@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: envelopes
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
>
> Builders,
> Well I'm just full of questions today, but I guess everyone is when
they
> first get started. Has anyone out there tried the presewn envelopes for
> covering their planes? I know that they are probably more expensive, but
if time
> is money, then......
> Bill Pleso
>
> Bill,
> I've always heard to not waste your money on the pre-sewn units. It
> doesn't take that long to use the standard flat material.
>
> Don Smythe
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
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: gas/fuel tanks |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
Clem
The material used for plastic gas cans is polypropelene. The material used
in the kitfox tanks with problems is fiberglass with epoxy resins. Most
ultralights use polypropelene tanks, thus no problem. The problem is trying
to get a gas tank to fit tightly in the wing. Fiberglass can be made to fit
more tightly.
Jim Shumaker
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: gas/fuel tanks
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
>
> Regarding the recent discussion about using auto gas in fiberglass/plastic
fuel tanks and how it could destroy the tank, it occurred to me this morning
when I took my Rans S12 up for a spin that I've never seen an ultralight
with anything other than a fiberglass tank, and I've never heard of a
leakage problem. For that matter, the tanks one can purchase at Walmart,
etc., that are approved for carrying gasoline are made of the same material,
and I'm reasonably sure that 99.9 percent of them carry auto fuel instead of
100 LL. Surely it's not that much of a problem, otherwise someone would
have had one dissolve in their garage and a lawsuit would have ensued.
Regarding checking for ethanol/methanol in auto fuel: Is there any way of
doing it other than shaking up a given volume of water with the gasoline and
looking to see if the water level drops (ie if some of the water is taken up
by the alcohol). It occurs to me that this simple test could lead to the
wrong conclusion i!
> f the gasoline is already "saturated" with water. Just something to kick
around.
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: RiteAngle3@aol.com
Re, Envelope covering vs sheet methods
Envelope covers are used on everything from Beech Staggerwing, Howard
DGA's to Ultralights. At the Arlington FlyIn each year for the last 4 or 5
Evergreen Flying Service from Vancouver, WA has covered either a fuselage, Wing,
and last year Howard DGA Tail surfaces. As with any process, professionals make
it look easy regardless of method used! (we had adjoining tents so watched
the professionals trying to get ideas)
I do believe with the new processes unless you follow the directions exactly
you will have a problem with crooked seams regardless of method used if you
don't follow instructions exactly. The instructions give methods to prevent
this and I've seen some fantastic cover jobs that were envelope methods. I have
friends who have used both. Each swears by "their" method.
My last cover job was with Grade A cotton in '60 & I am looking forward to
doing the covering job by ironing it on! I have an envelope cover for my Funk,
(certified aircraft) however I will probably use a lighter grade of Polyfiber
material and use the "sheet" method. I think it is up to the individual,
just see if you can watch both methods, talk to those who have used both methods
and make your opinion, either will work excellent, your results may vary
however :-)
Excellent classes on covering are available, check Sport Aviation.
Elbie
EAA 38308
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: | Official Usage Guideline [Please Read] [Monthly Posting] |
DNA: do not archive
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Lister,
Please read over the Kitfox-List Usage Guidelines below. The complete
Kitfox-List FAQ including these Usage Guidelines can be found at the
following URL:
http://www.matronics.com/FAQs/Kitfox-List.FAQ.html
Thank you,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
******************************************************************************
Kitfox-List Usage Guidelines
******************************************************************************
The following details the official Usage Guidelines for the Kitfox-List.
You are encouraged to read it carefully, and to abide by the rules therein.
Failure to use the Kitfox-List in the manner described below may result
in the removal of the subscribers from the List.
Kitfox-List Policy Statement
The purpose of the Kitfox-List is to provide a forum of discussion for
things related to this particular discussion group. The List's goals
are to serve as an information resource to its members; to deliver
high-quality content; to provide moral support; to foster camaraderie
among its members; and to support safe operation. Reaching these goals
requires the participation and cooperation of each and every member of
the List. To this end, the following guidelines have been established:
- Please keep all posts related to the List at some level. Do not submit
posts concerning computer viruses, urban legends, random humor, long
lost buddies' phone numbers, etc. etc.
- THINK carefully before you write. Ask yourself if your post will be
relevant to everyone. If you have to wonder about that, DON'T send it.
- Remember that your post will be included for posterity in an archive
that is growing in size at an extraordinary rate. Try to be concise and
terse in your posts. Avoid overly wordy and lengthy posts and
responses.
- Keep your signature brief. Please include your name, email address,
aircraft type/tail number, and geographic location. A short line
about where you are in the building process is also nice. Avoid
bulky signatures with character graphics; they consume unnecessary
space in the archive.
- DON'T post requests to the List for information when that info is
easily obtainable from other widely available sources. Consult the
web page or FAQ first.
- If you want to respond to a post, DO keep the "Subject:" line of
your response the same as that of the original post. This makes it
easy to find threads in the archive.
- When responding, NEVER quote the *entire* original post in your
response. DO use lines from the original post to help "tune in" the
reader to the topic at hand, but be selective. The impact that
quoting the entire original post has on the size of the archive
can not be overstated!
- When the poster asks you to respond to him/her personally, DO NOT
then go ahead and reply to the List. Be aware that clicking the
"reply" button on your mail package does not necessarily send your
response to the original poster. You might have to actively address
your response with the original poster's email address.
- DO NOT use the List to respond to a post unless you have something
to add that is relevant and has a broad appeal. "Way to go!", "I
agree", and "Congratulations" are all responses that are better sent
to the original poster directly, rather than to the List at large.
- When responding to others' posts, avoid the feeling that you need to
comment on every last point in their posts, unless you can truly
contribute something valuable.
- Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone
polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack
other listers, or take the moral high ground on an obviously
controversial issue. This will only cause a pointless debate that
will hurt feelings, waste bandwidth and resolve nothing.
-------
[This is an automated posting.]
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! --
|