---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 02/02/04: 51 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:34 AM - Re: envelopes (Michel Gordillo) 2. 01:06 AM - Fw: Re: Rotax engine problem (Patricia Truter) 3. 01:08 AM - 72" blade (warp drive) (Patricia Truter) 4. 01:20 AM - Re: 618 is out (Kitfox II)! (Patricia Truter) 5. 02:28 AM - Re: Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems (Jeff Thomas) 6. 04:54 AM - Re: Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems (michel) 7. 05:39 AM - Re: Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems (Gary Algate) 8. 06:25 AM - Re: Northwest Florida (W Duke) 9. 06:25 AM - Re: Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems (r.thomas@za.pwc.com) 10. 06:29 AM - Re:Cross wind limits (michel) 11. 06:39 AM - Rotax 582 power (michel) 12. 06:45 AM - Re: 72" blade (warp drive) (Tom Jones) 13. 07:05 AM - Re: Re: gas/fuel tanks (Lowell Fitt) 14. 07:06 AM - Re: MK7 Cross wind limits (Lowell Fitt) 15. 07:25 AM - New Battery in N85AE & Preheat (jeff.hays@aselia.com) 16. 07:29 AM - Re: 72" blade (warp drive) (Steve Cooper) 17. 07:29 AM - Re: Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems (Gary Algate) 18. 07:36 AM - Re: Rotax 582 power (Gary Algate) 19. 08:54 AM - MK7 Cross wind limits (Michael Gibbs) 20. 09:42 AM - Re: MK7 Cross wind limits (jeff.hays@aselia.com) 21. 10:15 AM - Re: New Battery in N85AE & Preheat (Vic Jacko) 22. 10:52 AM - Re: New Battery in N85AE & Preheat (Clifford Begnaud) 23. 10:53 AM - Re: Re:Cross wind limits (kurt schrader) 24. 10:55 AM - Re: MK7 Cross wind limits (kurt schrader) 25. 11:09 AM - Re: Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems (kurt schrader) 26. 12:02 PM - Re: Re:Cross wind limits (Michel Verheughe) 27. 12:02 PM - Re: Rotax 582 power did you say change pitch? (Aerobatics@aol.com) 28. 12:32 PM - Was: New Battery in N85AE & Preheat (jeff.hays@aselia.com) 29. 12:39 PM - Re: envelopes (charles b cook) 30. 12:49 PM - Tire Question (jeff.hays@aselia.com) 31. 01:47 PM - Re: Tire Question (kerrjohna@comcast.net) 32. 01:53 PM - Re: Re:Cross wind limits (Francisco J Ocampo) 33. 02:02 PM - Re: envelopes (jeff.hays@aselia.com) 34. 02:11 PM - Rear header tank retrofit (Peter Brookes) 35. 02:31 PM - Re: MK7 Cross wind limits (Kitfox) 36. 02:38 PM - Re: Rear header tank retrofit (Steve M) 37. 02:42 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems (Michel Verheughe) 38. 03:29 PM - Re: Rear header tank retrofit (dmorisse) 39. 03:33 PM - Tire Question (Scott McClintock) 40. 04:35 PM - Re: Rear header tank retrofit (Dee Young) 41. 04:45 PM - Re: Re:Cross wind limits (kurt schrader) 42. 04:48 PM - Re: Rear header tank retrofit (Arthur Nation) 43. 05:14 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 582 reducing power on take off.... (Aerobatics@aol.com) 44. 05:17 PM - Re: MK7 Cross wind limits (Clifford Begnaud) 45. 06:09 PM - Header Tank (Norm Beauchamp) 46. 06:21 PM - Re: Tire Question (Lowell Fitt) 47. 07:10 PM - Re: Header Tank (Ron) 48. 07:22 PM - Re: envelopes, in favor of (Ceashman@aol.com) 49. 10:15 PM - Re: Rear header tank retrofit (r.thomas@za.pwc.com) 50. 10:50 PM - Re: 72" blade (warp drive) (Patricia Truter) 51. 11:47 PM - Re: 72" blade (warp drive) (Steve Cooper) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:34:58 AM PST US From: "Michel Gordillo" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: envelopes --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Michel Gordillo" Hi Bill. I have used both systems and would go for the noraml one, not for the envelope. The results were nice on both, but I think that it is faster and easier when covering for the first time, using the normal procedure. Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Pleso" Subject: Kitfox-List: envelopes > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bill Pleso" > > 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 2 _____________________________________ Time: 01:06:58 AM PST US From: "Patricia Truter" Subject: Fw: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax engine problem --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Patricia Truter" is the max revs for the 582 not 6 500 rpm (static)? Patricia >>> pdbrookes@blueyonder.co.uk 2004-01-29 >>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Peter Brookes" < pdbrookes@blueyonder.co.uk > Jeff, I had the same problem last summer. I went through a similar process of elimination. It turned out to be spark plug caps! Apparently, they degrade over time to a point where they cause these symptoms. Replaced all four with a new set and then I was back up to 6,200rpm static! Try it out an let us know! Pete. Kitfox II 582 G-BTBG ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Thomas" < jeffthomas@ntlworld.com > Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax engine problem > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Thomas" < jeffthomas@ntlworld.com > > > Guys, I could use some advice regarding an engine problem I am > experiencing:- > > I fly a Kitfox III with a Rotax 582 oil injection engine. Up until I put > it back in the hanger after my last flight about 10 days ago no problems. On > Tuesday of this week all seemed normal until I began my take off run. When > full power is applied for take off I expect to see 5800 rpm which in the > first few seconds of the take off run (as the aircraft accelerates and the > prop unloads) increases to about 6200 rpm. > > On this occasion the revs initially increased to 5800 and as the take of > run began they dropped back to about 5200 - 5400 rpm so the take off was > aborted! Subsequent ground runs showed this to be repeated with the revs > fluctuating from around 5000 to 5500 rpm while full power was maintained. At > all times the engine started easily enough and appeared to run smoothly with > no sign of miss firing. > > Initial thoughts were that it might be a partial fuel restriction. Fuel > levels in the float bowls seemed ok, so fuel pipes were removed and fuel > flow checked, gascolator fuel filter cleaned, fuel pump removed and stripped > including removing and examining the pulse pipe, carburettors removed and > jets checked. No obvious problem was found and when the engine was run again > no improvement was forthcoming. Surprise,surprise.... > > Next the head and barrels were removed for examination and subsequent > de-coke. Though it was 120 hours since last strip down the engine was in a > reasonable state although the bottom rings were definitely sticking when > examined. After reassembly a new set of plugs were fitted for good luck! At > the same time as the decoke the resistance was measured of the coils, > ignition triggers and stator... all were within the Rotax specs. Subsequent > engine run up today gave an initial 5800 rpm followed almost immediately by > a drop to a steady 5000 - 5200 rpm. > > Finally, I noticed today that the water temp was higher than usual. > Normally in flight (with radiator partly blanked off for this time of year > in England) I expect to see about 70 *C and perhaps up to 80*C on full power > climb. Today the temps eventually got up to just under 100*c when I finally > shut down.... but put this down to prolonged running at full power while > tied down on the ground, therefore not getting the normal airflow through > the radiator that would happen in flight. Am I right to assume that or could > I be looking at a sticking thermostat.... would that account for the rev > drop I am experiencing? > > Sorry to be so long winded in describing what I have been doing but I want > you to have the full info. So now over to you lot..... who has experienced > something similar and how did you cure it? What should I be doing next? > > Regards > > Jeff > > -- dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 01:08:04 AM PST US From: "Patricia Truter" Subject: Kitfox-List: 72" blade (warp drive) --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Patricia Truter" Rotax specifies that: "... the moment of inertia of the prop must not be in the excess of 6,000 kg.cm2 (is that equal to: 2,046 lb.in2?)". Could anyone perhaps confirm what the moment of inertia is for a 3-blade 72" Ward Drive carbon fibre prop? (Tried to contact Warp ... no reply!) We are in the process of converting our 618 to a 582 (Kitfox II). Patricia -- dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 01:20:42 AM PST US From: "Patricia Truter" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 618 is out (Kitfox II)! --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Patricia Truter" Thanks! I would hate to loose another 7hp! >>> jopatco@mindspring.com 2004-01-28 >>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen < jopatco@mindspring.com > Just a note; With modes 1-3, the factory used to cut 2 inches out of the cone of the exhaust to make it fit the cowl. This took about 7 hp from the engine. One of the fixes we did on the model 4 was to re configure the cowl so this trimming was not necessary. You can put an extra bend in the exhaust on the earlier models, and avoid de tuning the pipe, although it has been so long since I worked for the factory, that I cannot remember exactly what we did. Vicki L. Tippett wrote: >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vicki L. Tippett" < planecrazy@erols.com > > > Patricia > > I have a Model II with the 582 and would be happy to take digital >photos of the engine installation for you if you would like . I can help you >out with the manuel as well . Fell free to contact me off the list if you >would like " Planecrazy@erols.com " > > Chuck Tippett > >-------Original Message------- > >From: kitfox-list@matronics.com >Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 3:03:34 AM >To: kitfox-list@matronics.com >Subject: Kitfox-List: 618 is out (Kitfox II)! > >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Patricia Truter" < PTruter@csir.co.za > > >I don't know if you can still remember: I had some problems with my 618 >(lost +- 500 revs and power). The engine only had 100 hours on. MANY >people worked on it, gave advice, etc. We even exchanged the crank shaft >with another to see if that could be the problem. The bottom line: we >spent about R30 (US$4 000) on the 618 with NO improvement and finally we >bought a new 582 (blue top). > >We are now working on the marriage of the 582/99 with our Kitfox II. >Now, that >exhaust system needs "folding up" inside the cowls and this can be an >exercise taking much longer than we have time for. If we could get a >head >start, that would help a lot. Any pics / drawings / ideas perhaps >available >of what other flyers did to fit the 582 exhaust into the KF II cowls? > >Regards > >Patricia >(I haven't been flying for almost 6 months now) :-( > > > > -- dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 02:28:18 AM PST US From: "Jeff Thomas" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Thomas" Hi guys. No typo Michel, I expect you to get more power out of your engine when you first apply full power than you will get when the engine and crank case has fully heated up say by the time your aircraft gets to 500 feet. This should be more easily seen if you continue to climbe the aircraft at "best rate of climbe" when you should see a slight reduction in your rate of climbe after the first 500 feet even though full power is still applied. I would expect the engine revs to increase (after full power has been applied for take off) during the take off run when the prop "unloads". When in the air and flying your airspeed will also affect the revs you see for a given throttle/power setting. Regards Jeff Do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Verheughe" To: Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 11:01 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > > 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 6 _____________________________________ Time: 04:54:44 AM PST US From: michel Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems --> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel >===== Original Message From "Jeff Thomas" > No typo Michel, Sorry, my mistake, Jeff and Jim, I misread. > I would expect the engine revs to increase (after full power has been >applied for take off) during the take off run when the prop "unloads". Yes, I undestand "static RPM" as I am acquainted with the maritime "bollard pull." As I go faster, my prop can spin faster too. I usually rotate at 45 MPH, fly level until say 65 MPH then pull the stick to climb, keeping that speed. I understand that I won't see max RPM while climbing or at slow speed. But, on a summer day, I can see 6,800 RPM at level flight but only say 6,400 at 60 MPH, just after rotation. I guess I am still slow and in a shallow climb. I never notice a power reduction at 500 ft AGL because that's when I turn crosswind and reduce the throttle. I understand that, to be kind to my 582, I should keep max and min power as short as possible. Cheers, Michel ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 05:39:49 AM PST US From: "Gary Algate" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Gary Algate" I had a friend who always reduced throttle as soon as possible (during climb) to look after his engine. Only problem with this is that you effectively lean the engine as the full throttle setting gives a rich mixture - when you throttle back you are also leaning the mixture. Not always a bonus on climb out. Gary Algate Lite2/582 >>>>>> I understand that, to be kind to my 582, I should keep max and min power as short as possible. Cheers, Michel >>>>>>> ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 06:25:14 AM PST US From: W Duke Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Northwest Florida --> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke I am not in the area you mentioned. I am in Dublin, GA which is between Macon and Savannah. Let me know if that is close enough to help. Do not archive. Maxwell Duke Roger Rockwell wrote: --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Roger Rockwell 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 Maxwell Duke S6/IO240/Phase II Flight Testing --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 06:25:14 AM PST US Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems From: r.thomas@za.pwc.com 02/02/2004 14:24:54, Serialize complete at 02/02/2004 14:24:54 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: r.thomas@za.pwc.com I was wondering when someone would mention that. A 582, if you watch your EGT's, runs cooler at full throttle than it does at cruise. The way I understand it, other than the rich vs lean principles, is that the fuel has a part to play in the cooling process. Regards Roger "Gary Algate" Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com 02/02/2004 18:37 Please respond to kitfox-list To: cc: Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems Size: 4 Kb --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Gary Algate" I had a friend who always reduced throttle as soon as possible (during climb) to look after his engine. Only problem with this is that you effectively lean the engine as the full throttle setting gives a rich mixture - when you throttle back you are also leaning the mixture. Not always a bonus on climb out. Gary Algate Lite2/582 >>>>>> I understand that, to be kind to my 582, I should keep max and min power as short as possible. Cheers, Michel >>>>>>> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 06:29:36 AM PST US From: michel Subject: Kitfox-List: RE:Cross wind limits --> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel >===== Original Message From kitfox-list@matronics.com >My 2002 KitFox pilots guide says 15 knots crosswind. Thank you Jim and Kurt. I will never fly in a crosswind stronger than what I feel I can handle. But for the sake of legal responsibility, I'll note 15 knots, as the official number from the manufacturer. Strange that I can't find that data in the Denneys' POH that I have. Cheers, Michel ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 06:39:09 AM PST US From: michel Subject: Kitfox-List: Rotax 582 power --> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel >===== Original Message From "Gary Algate" ===== >Only problem with this is that you effectively lean the engine as the full >throttle setting gives a rich mixture. OK, when do you think then I can reduce from full power? What happens if I fly T&G now, in winter, is that the water temp drops under 140F on final. By giving then a long lasting full power on take-off, I am afraid of seizure. Note that I try to keep the engine from getting too cold on final by making it short and keeping some power but ... the water temp goes down so fast! The only time I kept full power in a climb for a long time, is the time I tried to keep with another plane (a Jora microlight) that was climbing steep to 5,000 ft AGL. That time (in summer) the water temp went to 180F and I decided to "cool it" for a while by reducing power. Am I overcautious? Could be. As a beginner, I try to do things right but I might overdo things. Cheers, Michel do not archive ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 06:45:18 AM PST US From: Tom Jones Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 72" blade (warp drive) --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Tom Jones > the excess of 6,000 kg.cm2 (is that equal to: 2,046 lb.in2?)". Could > anyone > perhaps confirm what the moment of inertia is for a 3-blade 72" Ward > Drive > carbon fibre prop? (Tried to contact Warp ... no reply!) Patricia, Rotax "Service Instruction" 11-1991 converts 6,000 kg/cm to 2050 lb/in, so your calculation is good. This service instruction tells you how to calculate the inertia of your prop. Go to http://www.rotax-owner.com/sdocs.htm and click on "All service instruction documents" then scroll down to "SI-11-1991". You suspend the prop on some wire, swing it and time the oscillations then look on a graph for the answer. Looks like fun. Let us know what you get. Tom Jones, La Pine, OR, Classic 4 with 72" Warp 2 blade ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 07:05:49 AM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: gas/fuel tanks --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" Jim, I think the material is Polyethylene. Poly propylene is the rope stuff. Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "jimshumaker" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: gas/fuel tanks > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" > > 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" > To: "kitfox list" > Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: gas/fuel tanks > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" > > > > 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 14 ____________________________________ Time: 07:06:54 AM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: MK7 Cross wind limits --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" Please someone correct me if I am wrong, But I believe cross wind limits on certified aircraft are determined by the strongest cross wind landings made during the test / certification phase. In other words, they go someplace where the cross winds are strong and what you find is what you get. I suspect that if this is true, our cross wind limits are individually set depending on what we find while we are in Phase I. Practically, however, I would assume that cross wind limits for any particular airplane has to do with controllability and the skill of the pilot, so results may vary. Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Verheughe" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: MK7 Cross wind limits > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > > 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 15 ____________________________________ Time: 07:25:24 AM PST US From: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" Subject: Kitfox-List: New Battery in N85AE & Preheat --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" Out at the airport this weekend, and yanked out the old B&C battery and popped in a brand new Odyssey PC-680. What a difference! Cold start is much better than the B&C. Also my homemade constant on preheater (1500W space heater with a dryer vent hose), had the oil temperature already slightly above 110 when I cranked the plane up. Hangar temp according to my OAT Gauge said 15 degrees, so this is pretty decent. Lost 7 lb.s of weight in the tail, which hurt. I fly with 12 lb.s ballast installed normally, and the B&C battery which weighs 22 lbs. making total weight in the battery area 34 lb.s. Now I have 27, and it makes a difference. Still don't run out of elevator on slow landings, but definetly requires more stick back to keep the tail down. Prefer to fly with the heavier tail, so maybe I'll put a second PC-680 in the box alongside the new one. (two will fit in place of the B&C). What a great battery that PC-680 is! Here's the link http://www.odysseybatteries.com/. Then I'll just reduce my ballast weigh accordingly. Air temp was 0F when I took off, and outbound at 3000 ft. msl I was getting 110 kt.s gs on the gps at 2550 rpm, on the return 15 minutes later I was seeing 125 kt.s for a two way average of 117 kt.s. Not too bad. Rate of climb felt like the space shuttle with just me aboard and the cold temps. After landing I decided to play on the ramp a little bit, and I have no problem to lift the tail by holding brakes and powering it up off the ground with elevator and throttle. I have never tried this before, but my conlclusion is that it's pretty easy. Never felt like I'd nose over, since the slightest tug on the stick brings the tail back down. Basically just stationary flight. Now to work up to getting it off like that Supercub in the video. That's my weekend report. Jeff ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 07:29:12 AM PST US From: "Steve Cooper" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 72" blade (warp drive) --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" Patricia...the Rotax "C" & "E" gearbox will handle up to 6000 lbs of inertia reel weight. A 72" Warp 3 blade falls well withen this range. If you have a "B" box your out of luck. It is rated at 3000 Lbs. When you made the engine swap I was hoping to see you get into a 4 stroke...not another 2 stroker. :( Steve Cooper ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patricia Truter" Subject: Kitfox-List: 72" blade (warp drive) > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Patricia Truter" > > Rotax specifies that: "... the moment of inertia of the prop must not be > in > the excess of 6,000 kg.cm2 (is that equal to: 2,046 lb.in2?)". Could > anyone > perhaps confirm what the moment of inertia is for a 3-blade 72" Ward > Drive > carbon fibre prop? (Tried to contact Warp ... no reply!) > > We are in the process of converting our 618 to a 582 (Kitfox II). > > Patricia > > > -- > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. > > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 07:29:32 AM PST US From: "Gary Algate" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Gary Algate" Roger You are right as the fuel does cool a two stroke but when you are revving hard you need more fuel to give you the calories and therefore generate more heat. Therefore the fuel air ratio is really what determines your EGT. The Bing carbs are designed so that the needle regulates the flow to give you maximum rich setting when you need it as in and overshoot or during climb. When you reduce throttle to cruise the needle section is designed to lean out the mixture for maximum fuel economy. Nb - Yesterday morning I was all set to go for a flight (-20 degC) and I started my engine to let it warm up- after only 3 mins the needles flew past 150 and pegged at 220. I shut it down and checked my coolant system and there were no leaks or glaring problems. I suspected the thermostat so I waited until she cooled down and tried again. The temps went high again but I had time to feel the heater rad and noticed that it stayed cold further pointing to the thermostat. I took the thermostat out and put it in a pot on the stove and watched as I bought the water to the boil. The smaller gate opened prior to boiling but the larger plate on the rear of the thermostat didn't move. I have a friend who has an older 582 and he loaned me his thermostat which was designed differently to the one in my Bluehead but I tried it and it worked perfectly and temps are within normal range. I know it was working fine when I landed last time as was monitoring the water temp closely on a long descent at about -22 Deg C OAT. It must have failed on start up - thank goodness Gary Algate Lite2/582 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was wondering when someone would mention that. A 582, if you watch your EGT's, runs cooler at full throttle than it does at cruise. The way I understand it, other than the rich vs lean principles, is that the fuel has a part to play in the cooling process. Regards Roger <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 07:36:27 AM PST US From: "Gary Algate" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Rotax 582 power --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Gary Algate" Hi Michel I keep full power on until I reach 6 - 800 ft altitude (which also happens to be my safe turn and land dead stick altitude) and then coarsen my pitch and reduce power. Likewise on a descent in with cold OAT's I fine my pitch to keep the revs and temps up and maintain +150 degrees. Another nice feature of a CAP. Best regards Gary Algate Lite2/582 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, when do you think then I can reduce from full power? What happens if I fly T&G now, in winter, is that the water temp drops under 140F on final. By giving then a long lasting full power on take-off, I am afraid of seizure. Note that I try to keep the engine from getting too cold on final by making it short and keeping some power but ... the water temp goes down so fast! The only time I kept full power in a climb for a long time, is the time I tried to keep with another plane (a Jora microlight) that was climbing steep to 5,000 ft AGL. That time (in summer) the water temp went to 180F and I decided to "cool it" for a while by reducing power. Am I overcautious? Could be. As a beginner, I try to do things right but I might overdo things. Cheers, Michel do not archive advertising on the Matronics Forums. ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 08:54:48 AM PST US From: Michael Gibbs Subject: Kitfox-List: MK7 Cross wind limits --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kitfox" > >Can someone give me an idea fo the crosswind limits of the 7 on the ground >and on landing. There are no specific limits on crosswind component, even in certified aircraft. Manufacturers publish the "maximum demonstrated crosswind" value, which is simply the most they tried during flight tests--it's not a limitation. The real limits are the airplane's control authority (i.e., is there enough rudder to compensate for the bank in the wind) and the pilot's skill at handling crosswinds. Those are things that SkyStar cannot tell you... Mike G. ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 09:42:58 AM PST US From: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: MK7 Cross wind limits --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" One thing for sure though, my Kitfox is very solid feeling, and with those flaperons, and the big rudder, can handle a heck of a lot of crosswind. I feel more comfortable flying my Fox on a windy gusty day than in a trigear 172, just due to the power of the flight controls. When the windsock is standing straight out, swinging back and forth wildly, and basically 90 degrees to the runway. You could probably get the plane on the ground ... So my opinion is that, it is probably as good or better than any other plane in it's category for flying a crosswind landing in. Jeff Hays Original Message: ----------------- From: Michael Gibbs MichaelGibbs@cox.net Subject: Kitfox-List: MK7 Cross wind limits --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kitfox" > >Can someone give me an idea fo the crosswind limits of the 7 on the ground >and on landing. There are no specific limits on crosswind component, even in certified aircraft. Manufacturers publish the "maximum demonstrated crosswind" value, which is simply the most they tried during flight tests--it's not a limitation. The real limits are the airplane's control authority (i.e., is there enough rudder to compensate for the bank in the wind) and the pilot's skill at handling crosswinds. Those are things that SkyStar cannot tell you... Mike G. ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 10:15:27 AM PST US From: "Vic Jacko" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: New Battery in N85AE & Preheat --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" Nice report Jeff, It sounds like you and Cliff B. are "birds of a feather flock together" Got to get the two of you together sometime with your "heavy powered" Kitfoxes and see you-all have fun! Vic Do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Kitfox-List: New Battery in N85AE & Preheat > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" > > > Out at the airport this weekend, and yanked out the old B&C battery > and popped in a brand new Odyssey PC-680. What a difference! Cold > start is much better than the B&C. Also my homemade constant on > preheater (1500W space heater with a dryer vent hose), had the oil > temperature already slightly above 110 when I cranked the plane up. > Hangar temp according to my OAT Gauge said 15 degrees, so this is > pretty decent. > > Lost 7 lb.s of weight in the tail, which hurt. I fly with 12 lb.s > ballast installed normally, and the B&C battery which weighs 22 lbs. > making total weight in the battery area 34 lb.s. Now I have 27, and > it makes a difference. Still don't run out of elevator on slow > landings, but definetly requires more stick back to keep the tail > down. Prefer to fly with the heavier tail, so maybe I'll put a > second PC-680 in the box alongside the new one. (two will fit > in place of the B&C). What a great battery that PC-680 is! Here's > the link http://www.odysseybatteries.com/. Then I'll just reduce > my ballast weigh accordingly. > > Air temp was 0F when I took off, and outbound at 3000 ft. msl I > was getting 110 kt.s gs on the gps at 2550 rpm, on the return 15 > minutes later I was seeing 125 kt.s for a two way average of 117 > kt.s. Not too bad. Rate of climb felt like the space shuttle with > just me aboard and the cold temps. > > After landing I decided to play on the ramp a little bit, and I > have no problem to lift the tail by holding brakes and powering > it up off the ground with elevator and throttle. I have never > tried this before, but my conlclusion is that it's pretty easy. > Never felt like I'd nose over, since the slightest tug on the > stick brings the tail back down. Basically just stationary flight. > Now to work up to getting it off like that Supercub in the video. > > That's my weekend report. > > Jeff > > ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 10:52:21 AM PST US From: "Clifford Begnaud" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: New Battery in N85AE & Preheat --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" Vic, It will be fun for me, but for Jeff me thinks it will only be humiliating ;-) Cliff > > Nice report Jeff, It sounds like you and Cliff B. are "birds of a feather > flock together" Got to get the two of you together sometime with your > "heavy powered" Kitfoxes and see you-all have fun! > > Vic > > Do not archive > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Subject: Kitfox-List: New Battery in N85AE & Preheat > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" > > > > > > > Out at the airport this weekend, and yanked out the old B&C battery > > and popped in a brand new Odyssey PC-680. What a difference! Cold > > start is much better than the B&C. Also my homemade constant on > > preheater (1500W space heater with a dryer vent hose), had the oil > > temperature already slightly above 110 when I cranked the plane up. > > Hangar temp according to my OAT Gauge said 15 degrees, so this is > > pretty decent. > > > > Lost 7 lb.s of weight in the tail, which hurt. I fly with 12 lb.s > > ballast installed normally, and the B&C battery which weighs 22 lbs. > > making total weight in the battery area 34 lb.s. Now I have 27, and > > it makes a difference. Still don't run out of elevator on slow > > landings, but definetly requires more stick back to keep the tail > > down. Prefer to fly with the heavier tail, so maybe I'll put a > > second PC-680 in the box alongside the new one. (two will fit > > in place of the B&C). What a great battery that PC-680 is! Here's > > the link http://www.odysseybatteries.com/. Then I'll just reduce > > my ballast weigh accordingly. > > > > Air temp was 0F when I took off, and outbound at 3000 ft. msl I > > was getting 110 kt.s gs on the gps at 2550 rpm, on the return 15 > > minutes later I was seeing 125 kt.s for a two way average of 117 > > kt.s. Not too bad. Rate of climb felt like the space shuttle with > > just me aboard and the cold temps. > > > > After landing I decided to play on the ramp a little bit, and I > > have no problem to lift the tail by holding brakes and powering > > it up off the ground with elevator and throttle. I have never > > tried this before, but my conlclusion is that it's pretty easy. > > Never felt like I'd nose over, since the slightest tug on the > > stick brings the tail back down. Basically just stationary flight. > > Now to work up to getting it off like that Supercub in the video. > > > > That's my weekend report. > > > > Jeff > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 10:53:16 AM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE:Cross wind limits --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Michel, Oh, if you want the "legal" answer, that is different. Lowell Fitt has the right answer then. Manufacturers only give the "maximum demonstrated crosswind". They do not give a legal limit. It is like stall speeds. There is no "legal stall limit" because it depends upon weight, air density, flap settings.... So do crosswind speeds. Even in the same type plane, they depend upon weight, type of landing, landing speed, flap setting, and definately pilot skill... Oh, how about grass or pavement? One thing we have extra in all this is builders skills and the differences in each plane. This is why SS does not publish a crosswind limit. Kurt S. --- michel wrote: > > >===== Original Message From > kitfox-list@matronics.com > >My 2002 KitFox pilots guide says 15 knots > crosswind. > > Thank you Jim and Kurt. I will never fly in a > crosswind stronger than what I > feel I can handle. But for the sake of legal > responsibility, I'll note 15 > knots, as the official number from the manufacturer. > Strange that I can't find > that data in the Denneys' POH that I have. > > Cheers, > Michel __________________________________ ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 10:55:11 AM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: MK7 Cross wind limits --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Lowell, You are right. It is not a legal limit but a demonstrated one. Kurt S. Do not archive --- Lowell Fitt wrote: > > Please someone correct me if I am wrong, But I > believe cross wind limits on > certified aircraft are determined by the strongest > cross wind landings made > during the test / certification phase. __________________________________ ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 11:09:51 AM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader I was taught that the most common place for engine failure is at the first power reduction after takeoff. Therefore you should make your first power reduction only after you are high enough to enjoy the sudden peace and quiet. Then easezzzzzz it back. If you have a big long runway in front of you to land back on, lower is OK. Otherwise don't touch it until you have a place to land. Sudden mixture changes are a good time for failures too, due to the hot part temp changes they cause. My local FAA guru suggests that you angle off, then parallel the runway right after takeoff. If the engine quits, it is easier to call it a tight downwind and turn back to land. He is one of those Alaska guys I still need to learn a lot from. If there is a crosswind, offset to the downwind side to help the turn. If you are at most city airports, they don't like you off the centerline though. Kurt S. --- Gary Algate wrote: > > I had a friend who always reduced throttle as soon > as possible (during > climb) to look after his engine. Only problem with > this is that you > effectively lean the engine as the full throttle > setting gives a rich > mixture - when you throttle back you are also > leaning the mixture. Not > always a bonus on climb out. > > Gary Algate > Lite2/582 > > >>>>>> > I understand that, to be kind to my 582, I > should keep max and min power as short as possible. > > Cheers, > Michel __________________________________ ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 12:02:06 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE:Cross wind limits --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe kurt schrader wrote: > Manufacturers only give the "maximum demonstrated > crosswind". They do not give a legal limit. Thanks Kurt, Jeff, Mike and Lowell. I note then that there is no "legal limit." In any case, my limit is self-imposed, and very low for the time being; I need more landing practice. But since my theory books (the microlight license use the same books as the PPL-A) that are up to JAR-FCL requirements, says 0.2 times Vso, I didn't know if I had to respect that, or if I could "legally" fly in stronger sidewind components than 6 knots. The answer is ... maybe! :-) Cheers, Michel ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 12:02:06 PM PST US From: Aerobatics@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 582 power did you say change pitch? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Aerobatics@aol.com Which unit are you using? Do you like? I have an IVO on a 582 Blue Head and very pleased.... could be better? Dave KF 2 ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 12:32:51 PM PST US From: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" Subject: Kitfox-List: Was: New Battery in N85AE & Preheat --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" Cliff, Oh you can do better than that, don't forget I have a wife. :) Just don't go calling my dog ugly! Or else I'll sic her on you ... Jeff DO NOT ARCHIVE Original Message: ----------------- From: Clifford Begnaud shoeless@barefootpilot.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: New Battery in N85AE & Preheat --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" Vic, It will be fun for me, but for Jeff me thinks it will only be humiliating ;-) Cliff > > Nice report Jeff, It sounds like you and Cliff B. are "birds of a feather > flock together" Got to get the two of you together sometime with your > "heavy powered" Kitfoxes and see you-all have fun! > > Vic > > Do not archive > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Subject: Kitfox-List: New Battery in N85AE & Preheat > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" > > > > > > > Out at the airport this weekend, and yanked out the old B&C battery > > and popped in a brand new Odyssey PC-680. What a difference! Cold > > start is much better than the B&C. Also my homemade constant on > > preheater (1500W space heater with a dryer vent hose), had the oil > > temperature already slightly above 110 when I cranked the plane up. > > Hangar temp according to my OAT Gauge said 15 degrees, so this is > > pretty decent. > > > > Lost 7 lb.s of weight in the tail, which hurt. I fly with 12 lb.s > > ballast installed normally, and the B&C battery which weighs 22 lbs. > > making total weight in the battery area 34 lb.s. Now I have 27, and > > it makes a difference. Still don't run out of elevator on slow > > landings, but definetly requires more stick back to keep the tail > > down. Prefer to fly with the heavier tail, so maybe I'll put a > > second PC-680 in the box alongside the new one. (two will fit > > in place of the B&C). What a great battery that PC-680 is! Here's > > the link http://www.odysseybatteries.com/. Then I'll just reduce > > my ballast weigh accordingly. > > > > Air temp was 0F when I took off, and outbound at 3000 ft. msl I > > was getting 110 kt.s gs on the gps at 2550 rpm, on the return 15 > > minutes later I was seeing 125 kt.s for a two way average of 117 > > kt.s. Not too bad. Rate of climb felt like the space shuttle with > > just me aboard and the cold temps. > > > > After landing I decided to play on the ramp a little bit, and I > > have no problem to lift the tail by holding brakes and powering > > it up off the ground with elevator and throttle. I have never > > tried this before, but my conlclusion is that it's pretty easy. > > Never felt like I'd nose over, since the slightest tug on the > > stick brings the tail back down. Basically just stationary flight. > > Now to work up to getting it off like that Supercub in the video. > > > > That's my weekend report. > > > > Jeff > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 12:39:21 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: envelopes From: charles b cook --> Kitfox-List message posted by: charles b cook Bill, I used the envelope on my fuselage. I bought it from Spruce and it worked very well. Charles Cook On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 18:19:43 -0500 "Bill Pleso" writes: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bill Pleso" > > 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 30 ____________________________________ Time: 12:49:12 PM PST US From: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" Subject: Kitfox-List: Tire Question --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" Anybody got 8.50-6's on their Fox? If so how do they handle on the pavement? I've heard they make the plane more prone to swerving about. I have 6.00-6's now and they're fine on pavement. Jeff ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 01:47:58 PM PST US From: kerrjohna@comcast.net Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tire Question --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net i've run nothing but. would guess that the swerving might be an alignment issue. currently running golf cart tires?? no problems, good wear. > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" > > > Anybody got 8.50-6's on their Fox? If so how do they handle > on the pavement? I've heard they make the plane more prone > to swerving about. I have 6.00-6's now and they're fine on > pavement. > > Jeff > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 01:53:09 PM PST US From: "Francisco J Ocampo" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE:Cross wind limits Date: ...004 16:52:22 -0500 (Hr. est\341ndar del Pac\355fi... --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Francisco J Ocampo" For information I just arrive from eastern lands in Colombia and we have to landing with 29 Knots 0.90grades, the aprocch was with 80Mph, airstreet pavement, two persons.Good landing. Francisco J Ocampo Vixen 0-200 -------Original Message------- From: kitfox-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE:Cross wind limits --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe kurt schrader wrote: > Manufacturers only give the "maximum demonstrated > crosswind". They do not give a legal limit. Thanks Kurt, Jeff, Mike and Lowell. I note then that there is no "legal limit." In any case, my limit is self-imposed, and very low for the time being; I need more landing practice. But since my theory books (the microlight license use the same books as the PPL-A) that are up to JAR-FCL requirements, says 0.2 times Vso, I didn't know if I had to respect that, or if I could "legally" fly in stronger sidewind components than 6 knots. The answer is ... maybe! :-) Cheers, Michel ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 02:02:21 PM PST US From: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: envelopes --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" I took a week off from work, and spent the entire time in the garage pickling myself with poly-brush, and poly-tak fumes. Didn't use an envelope. Had no problems, simple fabric work. I'd save the money and not use the envelope myself. I used medium weight tapes on mine. After paint you can't really tell the difference over the light tapes. I'd use the medium everywhere if I did it again. Best week vacation I took in a long time. Jeff Original Message: ----------------- From: charles b cook cookflys@juno.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: envelopes --> Kitfox-List message posted by: charles b cook Bill, I used the envelope on my fuselage. I bought it from Spruce and it worked very well. Charles Cook On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 18:19:43 -0500 "Bill Pleso" writes: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bill Pleso" > > 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 34 ____________________________________ Time: 02:11:14 PM PST US From: "Peter Brookes" Subject: Kitfox-List: Rear header tank retrofit --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Peter Brookes" Has anyone fitted the rear header retrofit kit (SkyStar P/N 10637.000) in a Model II? I am removing my front header tank and also adding the Low Fuel Level warning kit. I am keen to know whether the kit is complete, or whether I will need additional parts. Also, of course, any problems with the fitting!! Thanks Pete Kitfox II 582 G-BTBG ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 02:31:12 PM PST US From: "Kitfox" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: MK7 Cross wind limits --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kitfox" Chaps, Thanks for the info., I've got a feeling it does say in 'How to fly a Kitfox' that 15 knots is the limit for all Kitfoxes at a 90 degree component but having some time in a Glastar I'd have thought that was somewhat conservative for the Series 7. Biggest problem I find with my MKII is the last part of landing when you have no flying control and are close to stopping, too much of a gust and it wants to pick a wing up, if it's blowing steady then not so much of a problem but when it's gusting have to be real careful as I've found to my cost!. One of our UK lads is thinking of buying the Series 7 and was asking what the feedback is on the handling. Thanks again, Chris Kitfox Owners Club (UK) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: MK7 Cross wind limits > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" > > Please someone correct me if I am wrong, But I believe cross wind limits on > certified aircraft are determined by the strongest cross wind landings made > during the test / certification phase. In other words, they go someplace > where the cross winds are strong and what you find is what you get. I > suspect that if this is true, our cross wind limits are individually set > depending on what we find while we are in Phase I. Practically, however, I > would assume that cross wind limits for any particular airplane has to do > with controllability and the skill of the pilot, so results may vary. > > Lowell > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michel Verheughe" > To: > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: MK7 Cross wind limits > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > > > > 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 36 ____________________________________ Time: 02:38:58 PM PST US From: "Steve M" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Rear header tank retrofit --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve M" I've still got the round 1-gal header tank in the panel of my Model II, never went to the retrofit. I put a Facet-type pump (3 psi) and a three-way electric fuel tank switch from Napa Auto Parts next to the header tank. The electric switch has connections for six hoses, so they call it a six-way tank selector switch, probably so they can make the price higher. But it works. I bring a feed and vent hose from the left wing tank to the selector switch, a feed and vent hose from the right wing tank, and run a feed and vent hose from the selector switch to the header tank. An electrical switch on the panel lets me select right or left wing tanks. BTW, the feed that goes from the tank-selector switch to the header tank, actually goes to the Facet fuel pump and THEN to the header tank. Positive fuel feed at all times, never had a problem yet. Unless you count the time when I folded the wings to tow the plane to the airport, then spread the wings and cleverly managed to kink BOTH feed lines from the wing tanks. Shortly after a takeoff and 1,000-foot full-power climb, it suddenly got real quiet. I looked up at the wing tanks for evidence of fuel flow (the feed and vent hoses are clear), saw zippo, and then noticed the kinked polyurethane hoses. Managed to unkink one, switched to that tank, and in about ten seconds the engine roared to life again. I had a sight gauge on the header tank, which works well. And sure enough, AFTER the engine quit I noticed that its level was WAY down. Hmmm. I wouldn't mind having a low-fuel warning of some kind on that header tank. Preferable a loud buzzer and a glaring red light that lights up and says, "Hey, stupid, why aren't you watching your sight gauge???" Moral of that story is, that clever gadgets do NOT substitute for intelligence and common sense. I now have one more item on my preflight checklist. Steve Maher Kitfox Model II, Geo Metro engine San Diego, CA >From: "Peter Brookes" >Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com >To: >Subject: Kitfox-List: Rear header tank retrofit >Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 22:11:04 -0000 > >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Peter Brookes" > > > >Has anyone fitted the rear header retrofit kit (SkyStar P/N 10637.000) in a >Model II? I am removing my front header tank and also adding the Low Fuel >Level warning kit. > >I am keen to know whether the kit is complete, or whether I will need >additional parts. Also, of course, any problems with the fitting!! > >Thanks >Pete > >Kitfox II 582 G-BTBG > > ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 02:42:00 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax 582 Engine problems --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe kurt schrader wrote: > Therefore you should make your first power reduction > only after you are high enough to enjoy the sudden > peace and quiet. Indeed, Kurt. But if you remember that I fly from Jarlsberg ENJB, the same place that produces the cheese you can buy in the U.S., you can imagine that, in this rugged mountainous country, my region is a small haven of farmland (cheese = milk = cows = pastures). I am very fortunate to have, on both sides of the 36-18 runway, large fields where emergency landings are no problem. In other places, over e.g. pine forests, I would climb as steep as possible, of course. But Roger has a good point in mentioning that the engine runs cooler at full throttle, due to the extra fuel. It reminds me that my father, in his C-119 Flying Boxcar, had water injection in the cylinders, to cool down his two 3,500 HP Pratt & Whitney engines, on initial climb. This is something I didn't think of. Good point. I was worrying about my water getting over 180F but that may not be the reason for seizure. Gary and Dave ... yes, CAP sounds lovely. I want it, I want it ... but first, I have to decide which engine I'll have after my 582, next winter. Yesterday, a fellow microlight pilot tried to convince me that I should have a Jabiru 2200. Before I think of a cockpit adjustable pitch prop, I have to know which engine it will be paired to. In 1956, when my father decided to have a sailboat built for the family, he said he wanted a variable pitch propeller. At the time, it was nearly unknown in yachting (and still is!). But, as a pilot, he knew what he was talking about and I must say that variable pitch on sailboat auxiliary engines is fantastic. ... but we are getting outside the scope of interest of this list. Cheers, Michel do not archive ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 03:29:08 PM PST US From: "dmorisse" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rear header tank retrofit --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dmorisse" > Has anyone fitted the rear header retrofit kit (SkyStar P/N 10637.000) in a Model II? I am removing my front header tank and also adding the Low Fuel Level warning kit. > I am keen to know whether the kit is complete, or whether I will need additional parts. Also, of course, any problems with the fitting!! > Thanks > Pete Before giving my Visa card # the first thing I'd ask them is if the kit and all parts is in stock. Darrel ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 03:33:56 PM PST US From: Scott McClintock Subject: Kitfox-List: Tire Question --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" Anybody got 8.50-6's on their Fox? If so how do they handle on the pavement? I've heard they make the plane more prone to swerving about. I have 6.00-6's now and they're fine on pavement. Jeff, I have the 8.5 "Tundra Tires". When I was bringing this plane up to Alaska I did get better landings on pavement when I increased the air pressure. They do have a lot more "grab" on pavement than skinny tires. (Ground loop?) I was thinking about putting some "Mickey Mouse" fatties on my plane but was swayed by a more experienced guy who convinced me that inertia at touchdown spinning the big tires has caused some light planes to nose over. He explained that it was like hitting the brakes just when you don't need them. It makes sense. Beside, those 22" tires cost a fortune. Scott- Nome ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 04:35:24 PM PST US From: "Dee Young" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rear header tank retrofit Seal-Send-Time: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:33:26 -0800 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dee Young" Not sure of the retrofit # but I the header tank located behind the seat. The tank is aluminum and feeds from both side along with a vent line. It discharges fuel from the bottom of the tank. The fittings are aluminum tube that take regular fuel lines to slide on and clamp using a regular hose clamp. Works dang good with 0 problems. Dee Young Model II ----- Original Message ----- From: dmorisse To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 3:25 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rear header tank retrofit --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dmorisse" > > Has anyone fitted the rear header retrofit kit (SkyStar P/N 10637.000) in a Model II? I am removing my front header tank and also adding the Low Fuel Level warning kit. > I am keen to know whether the kit is complete, or whether I will need additional parts. Also, of course, any problems with the fitting!! > Thanks > Pete Before giving my Visa card # the first thing I'd ask them is if the kit and all parts is in stock. Darrel ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 04:45:41 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE:Cross wind limits --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Hehe. You got me thinking again Michel. Gotta watch that! Today I was wondering what it would be like for the company test pilot. Some limits are more easily established than others... as in: "So, as you gradually slowed, at what speed did you observe the plane stall?" "Ha ha... Then that would be the stall speed, right?" "And as you tested ever higher crosswind components, at what crosswind component did you finally lose control of the plane and roll it up into a ball? Ah Ha! So we can now establish the crosswind limit as being one mph below that, right?" Some things can not reasonably be tested to failure, so the limits will at best be theoritical. ;-) Kurt S. Do not archive __________________________________ ________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 04:48:55 PM PST US From: Arthur Nation Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rear header tank retrofit --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Arthur Nation On Monday 02 February 2004 15:25, dmorisse wrote: AMEN to that!!! do not archive > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dmorisse" > > > Has anyone fitted the rear header retrofit kit (SkyStar P/N 10637.000) in > > a Model II? I am removing my front header tank and also adding the Low Fuel > Level warning kit. > > > I am keen to know whether the kit is complete, or whether I will need > > additional parts. Also, of course, any problems with the fitting!! > > > Thanks > > Pete > > Before giving my Visa card # the first thing I'd ask them is if the kit and > all parts is in stock. > Darrel > > ________________________________ Message 43 ____________________________________ Time: 05:14:29 PM PST US From: Aerobatics@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax 582 reducing power on take off.... --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Aerobatics@aol.com Yes...in fact the manual for the Rotax says do not use partial power...I believe its to keep EGT in line..... An EIS or digital EGT is wonderful in managing EGT. 2 strokes are particularly EGT fussy and require careful attention. ________________________________ Message 44 ____________________________________ Time: 05:17:22 PM PST US From: "Clifford Begnaud" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: MK7 Cross wind limits --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" Chris, Last fall on our trip back from the Desert Fox fly-in we landed in Moab Ut. The winds were 28 gusting to 36 at 270 degrees. We landed on an old beat-up (and closed) runway 33 instead of the main runway 21. We landed at about a 15 degree angle to the left of the runway center line so it was like landing on runway 31.5. My handy E6B computer says that at 28 knots the crosswind component was 20 knots. At 36 knots of wind the crosswind component was 25 knots. Our plane was heavily loaded with two on board and lots of gear, and that certainly helped things, but the landing really wasn't all that difficult. At least not for the plane ;-) Stan Specht landed in his model 4 immediately after us. He was solo and not as heavily loaded, yet Stan didn't seem to have any problem with this wind either. However, he landed on a parallel dirt runway which I wish I had used, but didn't know that it was there until the FBO called and told us about it after I had landed. We have had to land in winds over 35 knots quite a few times and the Kitfox has handled it just fine every time. Had there been a taxiway or a field that was closer to the wind, I likely would have used that and landed into the wind, but I have to admit that I get a kick out of the challenge of landing with a strong crosswind. These planes are just downright amazing. I agree with Jeff's assessment that a Kitfox is better at handling a strong crosswind than a Cessna 172 and most other light planes also. Oh, one more point. You might wonder why I chose to land with the wind coming from the left instead of using the open runway and having the wind come from the right? The crosswind component would have been exactly the same but I chose the wind from the left because of the larger spring on the right side of the tailwheel. There is a larger spring on this side to counteract p-factor/torque effect etc on take off. When landing, I would have the engine at idle, so there would be no p-factor or torque effect to speak of, so I wanted the stiffer spring opposite the wind for more control authority of the tailwheel. Best Regards, Cliff Kitfox model 5, yucky 0-235 > > Can someone give me an idea fo the crosswind limits of the 7 on the ground > and on landing. > Thanks, > Chris UK ________________________________ Message 45 ____________________________________ Time: 06:09:30 PM PST US From: Norm Beauchamp Subject: Kitfox-List: Header Tank --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Norm Beauchamp Pete looking for a header tank info. I have one on hand that fits that the Series 5. I don't know if the same tank is used for the II. I believe I have all the parts and info. If you are interested contact me off list. Norm Do not archive. ________________________________ Message 46 ____________________________________ Time: 06:21:23 PM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tire Question --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" I put over 250 hours on a set of scrubbed 4 ply 21 inch tires with nary a hint of noseover and this was in a fairly light Model IV. These tires were heavy. I also had no problems on any surface - gravel, grass, pavement. Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott McClintock" Subject: Kitfox-List: Tire Question > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" > > > > Anybody got 8.50-6's on their Fox? If so how do they handle > on the pavement? I've heard they make the plane more prone > to swerving about. I have 6.00-6's now and they're fine on > pavement. > > > Jeff, > I have the 8.5 "Tundra Tires". > When I was bringing this plane up to Alaska I did get better landings on > pavement when I increased the air pressure. > They do have a lot more "grab" on pavement than skinny tires. (Ground > loop?) > I was thinking about putting some "Mickey Mouse" fatties on my plane but > was swayed by a more experienced guy who convinced me that inertia at > touchdown spinning the big tires has caused some light planes to nose > over. He explained that it was like hitting the brakes just when you > don't need them. It makes sense. Beside, those 22" tires cost a fortune. > > Scott- Nome > > > > ________________________________ Message 47 ____________________________________ Time: 07:10:26 PM PST US From: "Ron" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Header Tank --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron" Hi Norm, If Pete does not buy it from you, let me know your selling price and I may buy if, if thats ok with you. Ron N55KF Series 5 rebuild ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norm Beauchamp" Subject: Kitfox-List: Header Tank > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Norm Beauchamp > > Pete looking for a header tank info. I have one on hand that fits that > the Series 5. I don't know if the same tank is used for the II. I > believe I have all the parts and info. > If you are interested contact me off list. Norm > > > Do not archive. > > ________________________________ Message 48 ____________________________________ Time: 07:22:51 PM PST US From: Ceashman@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: envelopes, in favor of --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Ceashman@aol.com Hello Bill. I am in favor of the "envelope" Be kind to yourself occasionally! But I would not start by using the envelope. I got the hang of fabric covering by using the blanket method on the small stuff and progressed to the wings. In fact, the rudder, my first covering task had to be pulled off. I wasn't satisfied! By this time, you get somewhat familiar with the process. Of course, months later, (or was it years)? when I was ready to cover the fuselage, I purchased the medium weight envelope from Aircraft Spruce (I think not too expensive) and with a little playing around positioning the seams and heating it up slowly and uniformly It was not so difficult. I cannot measure the time difference between blanket -V- envelope because I only have one fuselage! But I do remember thinking about how fast it felt compared to the wings. Of course, all the tape work remains the same. Best of luck! It is a great feeling when the steam rises during the shrinking process. Eric Ashman Classic IV Atlanta GA e-mail; ceashman@aol.com ________________________________ Message 49 ____________________________________ Time: 10:15:47 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rear header tank retrofit From: r.thomas@za.pwc.com 03/02/2004 06:15:21, Serialize complete at 03/02/2004 06:15:21 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: r.thomas@za.pwc.com Hi Peter Have you done the CG calculations and if so, what effect does this have? "Peter Brookes" Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com 03/02/2004 00:11 Please respond to kitfox-list To: cc: Subject: Kitfox-List: Rear header tank retrofit Size: 4 Kb --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Peter Brookes" Has anyone fitted the rear header retrofit kit (SkyStar P/N 10637.000) in a Model II? I am removing my front header tank and also adding the Low Fuel Level warning kit. I am keen to know whether the kit is complete, or whether I will need additional parts. Also, of course, any problems with the fitting!! Thanks Pete Kitfox II 582 G-BTBG The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. ________________________________ Message 50 ____________________________________ Time: 10:50:14 PM PST US From: "Patricia Truter" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 72" blade (warp drive) --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Patricia Truter" Thanks Steve, If funding wasn't a problem a 4 stroke would have been a better option. Patricia >>> spdrflyr@earthlink.net 2004-02-02 >>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" < spdrflyr@earthlink.net > Patricia...the Rotax "C" & "E" gearbox will handle up to 6000 lbs of inertia reel weight. A 72" Warp 3 blade falls well withen this range. If you have a "B" box your out of luck. It is rated at 3000 Lbs. When you made the engine swap I was hoping to see you get into a 4 stroke...not another 2 stroker. :( Steve Cooper ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patricia Truter" < PTruter@csir.co.za > Subject: Kitfox-List: 72" blade (warp drive) > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Patricia Truter" < PTruter@csir.co.za > > > Rotax specifies that: "... the moment of inertia of the prop must not be > in > the excess of 6,000 kg.cm2 (is that equal to: 2,046 lb.in2?)". Could > anyone > perhaps confirm what the moment of inertia is for a 3-blade 72" Ward > Drive > carbon fibre prop? (Tried to contact Warp ... no reply!) > > We are in the process of converting our 618 to a 582 (Kitfox II). > > Patricia > > > -- > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. > > -- dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. ________________________________ Message 51 ____________________________________ Time: 11:47:24 PM PST US From: "Steve Cooper" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 72" blade (warp drive) --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" Ya,...I know Patricia...it took me a long time to make the switch...but I'm glad I finally made the change. Good luck with the 582...by the way...who did you folks patronize for the purchase? Thanks, Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patricia Truter" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 72" blade (warp drive) > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Patricia Truter" > > Thanks Steve, > > If funding wasn't a problem a 4 stroke would have been a better > option. > > Patricia > > >>> spdrflyr@earthlink.net 2004-02-02 >>> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" < > spdrflyr@earthlink.net > > > Patricia...the Rotax "C" & "E" gearbox will handle up to 6000 lbs of > inertia > reel weight. A 72" Warp 3 blade falls well withen this range. If you > have a > "B" box your out of luck. It is rated at 3000 Lbs. When you made the > engine > swap I was hoping to see you get into a 4 stroke...not another 2 > stroker. :( > > Steve Cooper > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Patricia Truter" < PTruter@csir.co.za > > To: < kitfox-list@matronics.com > > Subject: Kitfox-List: 72" blade (warp drive) > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Patricia Truter" < > PTruter@csir.co.za > > > > > Rotax specifies that: "... the moment of inertia of the prop must not > be > > in > > the excess of 6,000 kg.cm2 (is that equal to: 2,046 lb.in2?)". Could > > anyone > > perhaps confirm what the moment of inertia is for a 3-blade 72" Ward > > Drive > > carbon fibre prop? (Tried to contact Warp ... no reply!) > > > > We are in the process of converting our 618 to a 582 (Kitfox II). > > > > Patricia > > > > > > -- > > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > > believed to be clean. > > MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. > > > > > > > -- > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. > >