Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:38 AM - Re: Kitfox-List Digest: 51 Msgs - 02/02/04 (tom)
2. 01:29 AM - Re: Tire Question (michel)
3. 01:36 AM - Fw: Rear header tank retrofit (Peter Brookes)
4. 02:10 AM - Front header tank + wing tanks (r.thomas@za.pwc.com)
5. 02:46 AM - Re: Front header tank + wing tanks (michel)
6. 06:59 AM - Re: Rear header tank retrofit (Glenn Horne)
7. 07:00 AM - Re: Rear header tank retrofit (Glenn Horne)
8. 08:03 AM - Header Tank Low Fuel Warning (jeff.hays@aselia.com)
9. 08:55 AM - Re: Front header tank + wing tanks (Jeff Thomas)
10. 09:38 AM - (jeff.hays@aselia.com)
11. 10:15 AM - Re: 72" blade (warp drive) (Randy Daughenbaugh)
12. 11:56 AM - Re: Re:Cross wind limits (Michel Verheughe)
13. 12:06 PM - an Old Wives Tale (Michel Verheughe)
14. 01:19 PM - A little aviation humor (Steve M)
15. 01:22 PM - Re: (kurt schrader)
16. 02:00 PM - Re: Old Wive's Tales (Vic Jacko)
17. 02:30 PM - Re: Rear header tank retrofit (Kitfox)
18. 02:51 PM - Re: Old Wive's Tales (Aerobatics@aol.com)
19. 02:51 PM - Re: (jeff.hays@aselia.com)
20. 03:22 PM - : Re:Cross wind limits (RiteAngle3@aol.com)
21. 03:48 PM - Re: (dmorisse)
22. 05:42 PM - Re: Old Wive's Tales (Bruce Harrington)
23. 06:00 PM - Re: Old Wive's Tales (Vic Jacko)
24. 06:12 PM - Re: Old Wive's Tales ()
25. 06:35 PM - Re: : Re:Cross wind limits (kurt schrader)
26. 07:06 PM - Cameron Park Kitfox Fly-in (Lowell Fitt)
27. 07:09 PM - Re: : Re:Cross wind limits (Lowell Fitt)
28. 07:35 PM - Re: Old Wive's Tales (kurt schrader)
29. 07:54 PM - Re: (kurt schrader)
30. 08:25 PM - Re: : Re:Cross wind limits (kurt schrader)
31. 10:29 PM - Re: Old Wive's Tales (Bruce Harrington)
32. 10:35 PM - Re: Old Wive's Tales - wind vs turns (Bruce Harrington)
33. 11:26 PM - Re: Old Wive's Tales (jimshumaker)
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: Kitfox-List Digest: 51 Msgs - 02/02/04 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: tom <ditapo@yahoo.com>
A pre-sewn elvelope would be handy if your using dope and fabric I guess. But polyfiber
doesn't have to be sewn together because it's just overlapped and glued.
And I think you can use a similar tacking method with ceconite. Not sure about
that though. Man though, I just saw a burning demo of dope and fabric vs.
polyfiber and I don't think I want to fly anything with dope on it. Whoosh and
your toast -
Kitfox-List Digest Server <kitfox-list-digest@matronics.com> wrote:*
==================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
==================================================
Today's complete Kitfox-List Digest can be also be found in either
of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest
formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked
Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII
version of the Kitfox-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic
text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list/Digest.Kitfox-List.2004-02-02.html
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list/Digest.Kitfox-List.2004-02-02.txt
================================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
================================================
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"
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
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
=== message truncated ===
---------------------------------
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel <michel@online.no>
>===== Original Message From Scott McClintock
>I have the 8.5 "Tundra Tires".
I also have these tundra tyres, Jeff. I fly from an airfield that has a two
years old new asphalt runway that is as smooth as a baby's bottom. Maybe it's
beginner's luck, but I have never felt any problem to land with them. Of
course, I can't compare since it's my only experience. I also have to gain
experience in crosswind. Maybe that will change my mind.
Cheers,
Michel
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: | Rear header tank retrofit |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Peter Brookes" <pdbrookes@blueyonder.co.uk>
C of G Calc from the service bulletin
COMPUTING NEW CG
ITEM MAKE & MODEL
WEIGHT X ARM = MOMENT
Extreme AFT CG
Rear Header Added
7.9 45.9 362.61
Added
Front Header
-7.5 -15.5 116.25
Removed
NEW TOTALS
= NW = NM
NM
" = + "-New CG
NW
NOTE: Plastic Header Tank Weight 2 lbs. 11 oz. Plastic Header Tank
Capacity 1.1 gals
----- Original Message -----
From: <r.thomas@za.pwc.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rear header tank retrofit
> --> 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" <pdbrookes@blueyonder.co.uk>
> Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> 03/02/2004 00:11
>
> Please respond to kitfox-list
>
>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> cc:
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Rear header tank retrofit
>
> Size: 4 Kb
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Peter Brookes"
> <pdbrookes@blueyonder.co.uk>
>
>
> 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 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: | Front header tank + wing tanks |
03/02/2004 10:09:57,
Serialize complete at 03/02/2004 10:09:57
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: r.thomas@za.pwc.com
Hi there
I have recently acquired a Kitfox II that has a front 'header' tank of 30
litres and wing tanks with 25 litres each. All 3 tanks have their own shut
off valve.
My question is - Is there an accepted practice as to how one should
consume the fuel from each source? (For instance should you first use the
header tank fuel and then the wing tanks, or does one balance the
consumption from each tank, or do you simply leave all three sources
valves open)
Regards
Roger
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 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: | Front header tank + wing tanks |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel <michel@online.no>
>===== Original Message From r.thomas@za.pwc.com =====
>My question is - Is there an accepted practice as to how one should
>consume the fuel from each source?
Roger, I assume that you have one valve between each wing tank and the header
tank, then one main valve between the header tank and the engine.
With my model 3, it is only the latter that I operate, the two others are left
open all the time. I don't see any practical reason to close one of them.
I also have a small plastic cloth peg that is on the the throttle handle. It
reminds me that the main valve is closed. When I open it, I move the peg on
the handle of the main valve. The throttle can now be used as the fuel line is
open. A simple trick that I started using last summer, when I forgot to open
the fuel valve and stopped on the taxiway, with a Cessna behind me. I felt
very stupid, pushing my Kifox on the grass, wondering why I had an engine
stop.
But I am a rookie and I have still much to learn. Let's see what experienced
pilots on the list have to say.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: | Rear header tank retrofit |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Glenn Horne" <glennflys@rcn.com>
Pete,
I moved my round header tank from behind the instrument
panel and installed it behind the seat on the passenger side.
(this is also on my Model II) Had to weld a piece of alum.
angle at the bottom of the tank to fit it but not a problem.
Have picture if you would like to see.
Glenn Horne-Suffolk, Va.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Arthur
Nation
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rear header tank retrofit
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Arthur Nation <anation@w-link.net>
On Monday 02 February 2004 15:25, dmorisse wrote:
AMEN to that!!!
do not archive
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dmorisse" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
> > 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 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: | Rear header tank retrofit |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Glenn Horne" <glennflys@rcn.com>
Pete.
BTY I installed a low fuel warning indicator in the top of the tank.
Glenn Horne-Suffolk, Va
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of dmorisse
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rear header tank retrofit
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dmorisse" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> 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 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: | Header Tank Low Fuel Warning |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
The Skystar low fuel sensor is actually this part:
http://www.mcmaster.com
4949K23
Optical Liquid-Level Sensor Polyamid Housing,
To Fill A Tank, 10 To 40 VDC
$ 79.65 Each
It is light sensitive, so the header must be either painted
black, or light shielded using foil tape. It works great. I
used the top 3/8 port on the header. I get a flicker out of
the led on the instrument panel quite frequently from the
constantly present air bubble in the header, and a constant
on when fuel to the header is low.
Somewhat disconcerting til you get used to it, as the lower
the fuel in the tanks get, the more it flickers in flight.
Jeff
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Front header tank + wing tanks |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Thomas" <jeffthomas@ntlworld.com>
Roger,
I have a Kitfox III with similar tanks to those you describe. When the
wing tank taps are turned on in my aircraft they drain into the front tank
(which feeds the engine).
A problem is that if you leave the wing tanks switched on the front tank
can over fill and the excess fuel comes out of the front tank filler cap and
sprays all over the screen!
I run my engine from the front tank which I usually keep pretty full. When
in flight and it has dropped by about a third I switch on the wing tanks and
top it up... then make sure I remember to switch the wing tanks off again! I
just repeat this process during the course of my flight.
Regards
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: <r.thomas@za.pwc.com>
To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:09 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Front header tank + wing tanks
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: r.thomas@za.pwc.com
>
> Hi there
>
> I have recently acquired a Kitfox II that has a front 'header' tank of
30
> litres and wing tanks with 25 litres each. All 3 tanks have their own
shut
> off valve.
>
> My question is - Is there an accepted practice as to how one should
> consume the fuel from each source? (For instance should you first use
the
> header tank fuel and then the wing tanks, or does one balance the
> consumption from each tank, or do you simply leave all three sources
> valves open)
>
> Regards
> Roger
>
> 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
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Somebody mentioned the sudden silence after reducing power after
climbout. I just happened to have read an interesting article on
Lycoming's Website. It is titled "A Review of Old Wives Tales".
According to Lycoming, it is an Old Wives Tale, that engines most
likely fail after the first power reduction.
The Link to the online docs is at:
http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage=support/publications/keyRe
prints/operation.html
Excerpt.
Tale Number One"The most likely time for an engine failure to occur is at
the first power reduction after takeoff." Every individual who pilots an
aircraft has probably heard this statement at some time. Is it a true
statement? We will venture a guess and say that perhaps it may have been at
some time in the distant past.
Several years ago this question was asked of me and it led to questioning
some FAA employees and a number of other pilots about where the
justification for this statement might be found. After several weeks of
poking into this subject, it was finally necessary to conclude that we
could find no justification - that it was simply an "Old Wives Tale."
A letter which recently came from a Flyer reader takes this one step
further. First it appears that there are many who continue to repeat this
tale. This caused our reader to delve into the subject a little deeper -
perhaps a little more scientifically than I did. Our reader studied a
computer readout which had data on incidents of engine failure over a
recent three year period. Based on the material in that report, this reader
concluded that engine failures during takeoff are quite rare, and that
failures during cruise are far more common. This does seem logical since
the engines of fixed wing aircraft run a majority of their operating life
in the cruise power range.
Our reader also had a very believable theory about how this tale may have
gotten started. He wrote, "It seems likely to me that this idea got started
when twin engine flight instructors would simulate an engine out during
takeoff - right about the time that the student put his hand on the prop
control to reduce power.... Gradually the idea was propagated that this was
the most likely time for an engine failure, when in reality it was a likely
time for an instructor to simulate a failure."
From these two searches for justification - with none being found in either
case, I believe it is fair to conclude that "the idea of an engine failure
being most likely to occur at the first power reduction after takeoff" is
in fact an old wives tale. For the sake of safety, lets stop repeating this
false tale and start promoting the idea that we should be ready to deal
with power failure at any time.
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 72" blade (warp drive) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
.
"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. "
Thanks Tom. I appreciate you pointing this out.
Powerfin has a discussion of inertial mass on their site. Look here about
2/3rd down.
http://www.powerfin.com/feature.htm
They even have some data on competitor's props.
I chose Powerfin based on favorable comments on the list. I felt the price
was good too. It is a work of art! Maybe some day I will be able to
report my experiences with it!!
Randy - Series 5/7 in the Black Hills of South Dakota
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE:Cross wind limits |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
kurt schrader wrote:
> Some things can not reasonably be tested to failure,
> so the limits will at best be theoritical. ;-)
You've got a point, Kurt. But my original question was to know if I could stand
responsible for flying in a crosswind stronger than "the book." Because my
"book" says 0.2 times Vso and that is 6 knots, which is not very much. Because
I am sure that, if I come in any kind of trouble, my insurance company will go
through everything, my medical record, my maintenance log, and the WX from the
local weather station that day.
Cheers,
Michel
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | an Old Wives Tale |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
"jeff.hays@aselia.com" wrote:
> Somebody mentioned the sudden silence after reducing power after
> climbout.
<SNIP>
> According to Lycoming, it is an Old Wives Tale, that engines most
> likely fail after the first power reduction.
As a rookie who barely understands the fundaments of aviation, I won't argue
with the experts of Lycoming, Jeff, I will rather bore you again with my ...
maritime tales.
I have noticed that things always go wrong at the start of a new season, or the
first day of a voyage. When I sailed non-stop for days, I usually spent the
first 24 hours with a screwdriver and monkey wrench, tightening everything
onboard. What didn't came loose after 24 hours would hold for months.
I feel, somehow, that it is the same for a plane. The first take-off after a
long winter rest is a lot of strain and may be the moment a deficient seal,
valve, etc. may decide to give up.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: | A little aviation humor |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve M" <ondeck355@hotmail.com>
There ain't nothing so useless as altitude above you, runway behind you, or
the gas that's already gone.
Though I Fly Through the Valley of Death ...I Shall Fear No Evil . For I am
at 80,000 Feet and Climbing (sign over the entrance to the SR-71 operating
location Kadena, Japan).
You've never been lost until you've been lost at Mach 3. (Paul F. Crickmore
- test pilot)
If the wings are traveling faster than the fuselage, it's probably a
helicopter -- and therefore, unsafe.
Navy carrier pilots to Air Force pilots: Flaring is like squatting to pee.
When one engine fails on a twin-engine airplane you always have enough power
left to get you to the scene of the crash.
Without ammunition, the USAF would be just another expensive flying club.
What is the similarity between air traffic controllers and pilots? If a
pilot screws up, the pilot dies; If ATC screws up, the pilot dies.
Never trade luck for skill. The three most common expressions (or famous
last words) in aviation are: "Why is it doing that?", "Where are we?" and
"Oh Shit!"
Weather forecasts are horoscopes with numbers.
Progress in airline flying; now a flight attendant can get a pilot pregnant.
Airspeed, altitude, and brains. Two are always needed to successfully
complete the flight.
A smooth landing is mostly luck; two in a row is all luck; three in a row is
prevarication.
I remember when sex was safe and flying was dangerous.
Mankind has a perfect record in aviation; we never left one up there!
Flying the airplane is more important than radioing your plight to a person
on the ground incapable of understanding or doing anything about it.
Just remember, if you crash because of weather, your funeral will be held on
a sunny day.
Advice given to RAF pilots during W. W. II. When a prang (crash) seems
inevitable, endeavor to strike the softest, cheapest object in the vicinity
as slowly and gently as possible.
The Piper Cub is the safest airplane in the world; it can just barely kill
you. (Attributed to Max Stanley, Northrop test pilot)
A pilot who doesn't have any fear probably isn't flying his plane to its
maximum. (Jon McBride, astronaut)
If you're faced with a forced landing, fly the thing as far into the crash
as possible. (Bob Hoover - renowned aerobatic and test pilot)
If an airplane is still in one piece, don't cheat on it; ride the bastard
down. (Ernest K. Gann, author & aviator)
Never fly in the same cockpit with someone braver than you.
There is no reason to fly through a thunderstorm in peacetime. (Sign over
squadron ops desk at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ, 1970).
The three best things in life are a good landing, a good orgasm, and, a good
bowel movement. The night carrier landing is one of the few opportunities in
life where you get to experience all three at the same time. (Author
unknown, but someone who's been there)
If something hasn't broken on your helicopter, it's about to.
Basic Flying Rules Try to stay in the middle of the air. Do not go near the
edges of it. The edges of the air can be recognized by the appearance of
ground, buildings, sea, trees and interstellar space. It is much more
difficult to fly there.
You know that your landing gear is up and locked when it takes full power to
taxi to the terminal.
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Thanks Jeff,
This one was my fault. Thanks for setting me
straight.
Wish I had the time to confirm everything I have
heard. I do believe it is true that fully 90% of what
we hear is wrong. Trying to weed out that much and
arrive at the 10% truth takes some faith.
Individually, there is just not enough time for
certainty. But together, we do weed a lot out and get
closer and safer.
Kurt S.
--- "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
wrote:
>
> Somebody mentioned the sudden silence after reducing
> power after
> climbout....
__________________________________
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: Old Wive's Tales |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Jeff, thank you for the imput. I like you and many others enjoy debunking
unlikely stories that are more fiction than fact.
How many have passed on the story that placing a fully charged battery on a
cold concrete floor will cause it to discharge and go dead. This is true,
but not due to any electrical connect or osmosis. The battery will
eventually go dead regardless of where you store it. If placed on a
concrete floor that is colder than the outside air the electrolyte has a
reduction in specific gravity which reduces the output of the battery. In
some cases if the air around the battery in your airplane is colder than the
concrete floor the battery will have more power available sitting on the
concrete floor than in your airplane!
There is one story for sure for you two strokers. Decreasing the prop
pitch will cause your two stroke to lean out in flight. Increasing pitch
will cause it to richen up in flight!
Any takers on this one?
Vic
Chief Alien Debunker, Roswell, NM
--- Original Message -----
From: <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com"
<jeff.hays@aselia.com>
>
>
> Somebody mentioned the sudden silence after reducing power after
> climbout. I just happened to have read an interesting article on
> Lycoming's Website. It is titled "A Review of Old Wives Tales".
> According to Lycoming, it is an Old Wives Tale, that engines most
> likely fail after the first power reduction.
>
> The Link to the online docs is at:
>
http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage=support/publications/keyRe
> prints/operation.html
>
> Excerpt.
>
> Tale Number One"The most likely time for an engine failure to occur is at
> the first power reduction after takeoff." Every individual who pilots an
> aircraft has probably heard this statement at some time. Is it a true
> statement? We will venture a guess and say that perhaps it may have been
at
> some time in the distant past.
>
> Several years ago this question was asked of me and it led to questioning
> some FAA employees and a number of other pilots about where the
> justification for this statement might be found. After several weeks of
> poking into this subject, it was finally necessary to conclude that we
> could find no justification - that it was simply an "Old Wives Tale."
>
> A letter which recently came from a Flyer reader takes this one step
> further. First it appears that there are many who continue to repeat this
> tale. This caused our reader to delve into the subject a little deeper -
> perhaps a little more scientifically than I did. Our reader studied a
> computer readout which had data on incidents of engine failure over a
> recent three year period. Based on the material in that report, this
reader
> concluded that engine failures during takeoff are quite rare, and that
> failures during cruise are far more common. This does seem logical since
> the engines of fixed wing aircraft run a majority of their operating life
> in the cruise power range.
>
> Our reader also had a very believable theory about how this tale may have
> gotten started. He wrote, "It seems likely to me that this idea got
started
> when twin engine flight instructors would simulate an engine out during
> takeoff - right about the time that the student put his hand on the prop
> control to reduce power.... Gradually the idea was propagated that this
was
> the most likely time for an engine failure, when in reality it was a
likely
> time for an instructor to simulate a failure."
>
> From these two searches for justification - with none being found in
either
> case, I believe it is fair to conclude that "the idea of an engine failure
> being most likely to occur at the first power reduction after takeoff" is
> in fact an old wives tale. For the sake of safety, lets stop repeating
this
> false tale and start promoting the idea that we should be ready to deal
> with power failure at any time.
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rear header tank retrofit |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kitfox" <Kitfox@chrisbates.co.uk>
Don't know if it's still there but I posted an xl spreadsheet with all the
weight and balance calculations on it onto sportflight.
A minor mod and it should work it all out.
If anyone wants it I'll either mail it to you or post it again.
Chris
MKII UK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Brookes" <pdbrookes@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Fw: Kitfox-List: Rear header tank retrofit
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Peter Brookes"
<pdbrookes@blueyonder.co.uk>
>
> C of G Calc from the service bulletin
>
> COMPUTING NEW CG
>
> ITEM MAKE & MODEL
> WEIGHT X ARM = MOMENT
>
>
> Extreme AFT CG
>
> Rear Header Added
> 7.9 45.9 362.61
>
> Added
>
> Front Header
> -7.5 -15.5 116.25
>
> Removed
>
> NEW TOTALS
> = NW = NM
>
>
NM
> " = + "-New CG
>
> NW
>
>
> NOTE: Plastic Header Tank Weight 2 lbs. 11 oz. Plastic Header Tank
> Capacity 1.1 gals
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <r.thomas@za.pwc.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rear header tank retrofit
>
>
> > --> 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" <pdbrookes@blueyonder.co.uk>
> > Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > 03/02/2004 00:11
> >
> > Please respond to kitfox-list
> >
> >
> > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > cc:
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Rear header tank retrofit
> >
> > Size: 4 Kb
> >
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Peter Brookes"
> > <pdbrookes@blueyonder.co.uk>
> >
> >
> > 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 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: Old Wive's Tales |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Aerobatics@aol.com
Hmmm good one.....
I would like to add...... our Rotax 2 strokes operates with a tuned exhaust
system. Being on the pipe will have a bearing on egt vs being off.....
that is a direct relationship of RPM ....I believe another reason why Rotax want
you at a certain RPM ...
We used tuned exhaust for years on our model planes and it got really
complicated... ie, type of fuel, prop, plug, deck height, outside temp, lenght
to
high point on pipe, and of course where you tweak that needle! If you ran the
pipe short, it came with its own set of problems.... if too long, it simple
became a muffler...
The beauty of the Rotax is that it comes as a total, pretuned and proven
package and works very well..... Frankly, it is a pretty impressive unit.
Dave
KF2 582
ps: we do little planes :-) www.davepatrickmodels.com
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: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Hi -
Hey I heard the same thing too, I just happen to read a lot and came
across this stuff on Lycoming's website setting it straight.
Jeff
Original Message:
-----------------
From: kurt schrader smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Thanks Jeff,
This one was my fault. Thanks for setting me
straight.
Wish I had the time to confirm everything I have
heard. I do believe it is true that fully 90% of what
we hear is wrong. Trying to weed out that much and
arrive at the 10% truth takes some faith.
Individually, there is just not enough time for
certainty. But together, we do weed a lot out and get
closer and safer.
Kurt S.
--- "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
wrote:
>
> Somebody mentioned the sudden silence after reducing
> power after
> climbout....
__________________________________
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | : RE:Cross wind limits |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: RiteAngle3@aol.com
In a message dated 2/3/04 11:57:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, michel@online.no
writes:
But my original question was to know if I could stand
responsible for flying in a crosswind stronger than "the book." Because my
"book" says 0.2 times Vso and that is 6 knots, which is not very much. Because
I am sure that, if I come in any kind of trouble, my insurance company will go
through everything, my medical record, my maintenance log, and the WX from the
local weather station that day.
>>Michel, what is "The Book" you are quoting? There are hundreds of books
on design and flying, I'll look in FAR part 23, US certification standards
and see what I can find. I'll reply off line. Hope all well in the Northland!
Elbie
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: "dmorisse" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Don't feel alone Kurt. I think every one of us has heard this one, but few
of us have questioned it on in a logical way. It never did make any sense
to me and nobody was ever able to explain it so I didn't give it much
credence. Just an urban legend in my opinion.
Darrel
> This one was my fault. Thanks for setting me
> straight.
>
> Wish I had the time to confirm everything I have
> heard. I do believe it is true that fully 90% of what
> we hear is wrong. Trying to weed out that much and
> arrive at the 10% truth takes some faith.
> Individually, there is just not enough time for
> certainty. But together, we do weed a lot out and get
> closer and safer.
>
> Kurt S.
>
> --- "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Somebody mentioned the sudden silence after reducing
> > power after
> > climbout....
>
> __________________________________
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Old Wive's Tales |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Vic,
Start with a 582 set for 6000-6200 static and mixture correct for 6800 full
throttle level flight and also at cruise (5800-6200 rpm).
My experience over 800 hours on a 582 indicated this:
1. reducing the prop pitch increased the rpm and the EGTs went up in level
flight above cruise.
2. increasing the prop pitch decreased the rpm and EGTs went down.
Reason? Same needle setting but more or less air flow.
Also, winter flying required higher pitch and bigger jets, summer the reverse.
bh
ex-N194KF, 582ed, 800+ hrs
> There is one story for sure for you two strokers. Decreasing the prop
> pitch will cause your two stroke to lean out in flight. Increasing pitch
> will cause it to richen up in flight!
>
> Any takers on this one?
>
> Vic
> Chief Alien Debunker, Roswell, NM
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: Old Wive's Tales |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Bruce, I think the increase in the EGT's with a decrease in prop pitch was
due to the engine running on the lean side and conversely when you increased
the pitch the EGT's went down due to the engine running a little richer.
The lower EGT's was due to the cooling effect of the fuel. The lean
mixture caused the higher EGT's with the decrease in pitch.......... "I
think" ------------all of this IMHO!
Increasing fuel flow in colder weather is necessary because the density
altitude is lower. Density altitude is of course higher in the summer
months which require a leaner mixture. Those of use who fly aircraft with
mixture controls are always playing with them as we change altitudes or
react to differences in density altitude. Naturally you know all these
things but the info can be of value to a person new to what we do.
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Old Wive's Tales
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
>
> Hi Vic,
>
> Start with a 582 set for 6000-6200 static and mixture correct for 6800
full
> throttle level flight and also at cruise (5800-6200 rpm).
> My experience over 800 hours on a 582 indicated this:
> 1. reducing the prop pitch increased the rpm and the EGTs went up in level
> flight above cruise.
> 2. increasing the prop pitch decreased the rpm and EGTs went down.
> Reason? Same needle setting but more or less air flow.
> Also, winter flying required higher pitch and bigger jets, summer the
reverse.
>
> bh
> ex-N194KF, 582ed, 800+ hrs
>
>
> > There is one story for sure for you two strokers. Decreasing the prop
> > pitch will cause your two stroke to lean out in flight. Increasing
pitch
> > will cause it to richen up in flight!
> >
> > Any takers on this one?
> >
> > Vic
> > Chief Alien Debunker, Roswell, NM
>
>
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: Old Wive's Tales |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: <rex@awarenest.com>
Back around 1980 (I believe) there was a controversy
about sharp turns near the ground with windy conditions.
If I can remember the senario, it was something like:
If you make a steep 180 turn from a headwind condition
to a tailwind condition your stall speed will be
increased. Induced windshear? Inertial lag? I don't
remember.
There were convincing arguments for both sides and I
never saw it resolved. The logic from areodynamics experts
pitted against highly experienced crop dusters and bush
pilots who swore it was fact. Anyone?
Rex
Do not achive
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: : RE:Cross wind limits |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Michel and the List,
I have wondered about this problem since I first sat
in my .02% completed airplane. When I have the stick
all the way back, total side stick movement is
restricted to 2" each way due to my upper legs. If
there was a passenger in the other seat, it could be
even worse, depending on their legs. To me, this
represents my crosswind limiting factor. I lose
2/3rds of ailerons in the flare.
Ok, you say lose weight. :-) But this is where my
legs are mounted. Won't help much to lose weight.
It is the part of the stick that is most parallel to
the ground that hits me. I had thought of extending
the stick upward so that the bend is above my legs,
but I have to watch clearance to the instrument panel
then.
Has anyone encountered a real problem with this? Any
solutions tried?
Kurt S.
__________________________________
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cameron Park Kitfox Fly-in |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Inquiries are now coming in regarding the Cameron Park Kitfox Fly-in and thought
I might mention it for those that might want to come this year.
It will be held on Saturday, June 12th starting when every one gets here and lasting
until the last one leaves. We will be out and about most likely at first
light and early arrivals might be put to work.
For details log onto http://cameronparkkitfox.com
hope to se a bunch of you here.
Lowell
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: : RE:Cross wind limits |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Kurt, I haven't encountered a problem. And have landed in over 20 mph at
270. It is a fact though that travel is minimal there.
----- Original Message -----
From: "kurt schrader" <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: : RE:Cross wind limits
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> Michel and the List,
>
> I have wondered about this problem since I first sat
> in my .02% completed airplane. When I have the stick
> all the way back, total side stick movement is
> restricted to 2" each way due to my upper legs. If
> there was a passenger in the other seat, it could be
> even worse, depending on their legs. To me, this
> represents my crosswind limiting factor. I lose
> 2/3rds of ailerons in the flare.
>
> Ok, you say lose weight. :-) But this is where my
> legs are mounted. Won't help much to lose weight.
>
> It is the part of the stick that is most parallel to
> the ground that hits me. I had thought of extending
> the stick upward so that the bend is above my legs,
> but I have to watch clearance to the instrument panel
> then.
>
> Has anyone encountered a real problem with this? Any
> solutions tried?
>
> Kurt S.
>
> __________________________________
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Old Wive's Tales |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Rex,
I beleive that this is due to the tendency of pilots
to use ground references and aero-experts to only
worry about air. When we turn from the wind to
downwind, the ground speed increases and the turn
widens. This is aerodynamically right as it is, but
we see the change on the ground and try to "correct"
it by tightening up the turn and slowing down airspeed
to keep the turn and ground speed constant. Bad
combination: Slowing down and higher "G's".
Turning back into the wind would likely result in a
relaxation of the stick to keep the turn and to
increase the airspeed to maintain ground speed.
If the pilots who said it was so did it first looking
out at say 100' and then (with a safety pilot) on
instruments, only the first time would show a stall
speed increase. If you were to video tape their
instruments during the visual turn, you would see the
slow down and AOB increase that causes the problem.
We all have to fight this tendency to fly ground speed
instead of airspeed. Like vertigo, you never are
immune.
Kurt S.
--- rex@awarenest.com wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by:
> <rex@awarenest.com>
>
> Back around 1980 (I believe) there was a
> controversy
> about sharp turns near the ground with windy
> conditions.
> If I can remember the senario, it was something
> like:
> If you make a steep 180 turn from a headwind
> condition
> to a tailwind condition your stall speed will be
> increased. Induced windshear? Inertial lag? I don't
> remember.
>
> There were convincing arguments for both sides and
> I
> never saw it resolved. The logic from areodynamics
> experts
> pitted against highly experienced crop dusters and
> bush
> pilots who swore it was fact. Anyone?
>
> Rex
> Do not achive
__________________________________
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Thanks Mr D,
Do not archive.
I did feel like I should have known better. As an
investigator, I learned that only about 10% of
witnesses at aircraft mishaps were right too. One
says the jet engine "sputtered". The other says the
pilot "gunned the engine", "it blew up in flight",
etc. And we all know that example about the car crash
witnesses. Everyone has a different story.
I read a good article some years ago now about a
mystery being solved. Some engines showed damage that
looked like multiple rings in the cylinder walls after
a failure. Well, one day while running an engine on a
test stand with the FAA present, a bunch of sparks
came flying out of the exhaust. The operator shut
down immediately and they disassembled the engine. It
turned out that the cause was the leaning of the
mixture too rapidly and the cooling fins cooled the
cylinder surface only under them first, before the
heat change could stabilize. It happened very fast and
it was a surprise to everyone that this was the cause.
The way the engine was leaned was at "normal" speed.
Seems the extra fuel when rich makes a big difference
and slower leaning is necessary.
Kurt S.
--- dmorisse <morid@northland.lib.mi.us> wrote:
>
>
> Don't feel alone Kurt. I think every one of us has
> heard this one, but few
> of us have questioned it on in a logical way. It
> never did make any sense
> to me and nobody was ever able to explain it so I
> didn't give it much
> credence. Just an urban legend in my opinion.
> Darrel
__________________________________
Message 30
| 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: : RE:Cross wind limits |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Thanks Lowell,
I just thought of this. I might not have such a
problem if I keep the CG a bit more aft and the stick
out of my gut until touchdown. Right now I am running
it real close to the front limit for initial testing.
Maybe a water jug in the baggage sack, that I can dump
when not needed, would do. I'll have to look into
that after more testing is done. The other problem is
due to the fact that I trim it for 60 kts/not 60 mph,
and that is fast. Once I do some complete stall
testing and more slow flight, I can use less speed,
more trim, and less elevator.
Gosh, I feel like this is KitFox twelve step class
today... "I admit, I am hooked on building and
flying... Please help me..." :-)
Kurt S.
--- Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@inreach.com> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
> <lcfitt@inreach.com>
>
> Kurt, I haven't encountered a problem. And have
> landed in over 20 mph at
> 270. It is a fact though that travel is minimal
> there.
__________________________________
Message 31
| 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: Old Wive's Tales |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Vic, I think we are agreeing on most of this!
> Bruce, I think the increase in the EGT's with a decrease in prop pitch was
> due to the engine running on the lean side and conversely when you increased
> the pitch the EGT's went down due to the engine running a little richer.
> The lower EGT's was due to the cooling effect of the fuel. The lean
> mixture caused the higher EGT's with the decrease in pitch.......... "I
> think" ------------all of this IMHO!
However, the mixture was ok at the start. I used the inflight mixture control
for most of my 800 hours. And kept EGTs in good range.
So decrease pitch increases rpm which leans mixture.
Increase pitch reduces rpm which richens mixture.
> Increasing fuel flow in colder weather is necessary because the density
> altitude is lower. Density altitude is of course higher in the summer
> months which require a leaner mixture. Those of use who fly aircraft with
> mixture controls are always playing with them as we change altitudes or
> react to differences in density altitude. Naturally you know all these
> things but the info can be of value to a person new to what we do.
>
> Vic
I understand. I would takeoff at 450-500' MSL and climb to 8,000' MSL or more
to clear the Cascades on my way to the Kitfox Factory Fly-Ins. Constantly on
the mixture to keep fuel burn economical but EGTs ok.
Even my new 4-stroke Jab 3300 in my Sonex has to have carb needle changes winter
vs summer. And it has a mixture controllable AeroCarb. Needle changes are to
reduce too rich a mixture in the pattern which tend to foul the plugs, and
during descents.
Cheers,
bh
Message 32
| 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: Old Wive's Tales - wind vs turns |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Rex,
I suspect the problem was with the cropduster pilot flying a course relative to
the ground, so he banked more sharply than appropriate. Also, the moving air
mass near the ground probably is not acting like one big air mass moving at one
speed. It's probably very shifty and variable with windy conditions near the
ground. So a higher IAS is needed to counteract sudden wind changes, and a stall
during turns.
At 3000 AGL, with steady wind, the airplane doesn't know the air is moving, but
path relative to the ground is very different from light wind conditions, as we
all know by now!
Cheers,
bh
DO NOT ARCHIVE
> Back around 1980 (I believe) there was a controversy
> about sharp turns near the ground with windy conditions.
> If I can remember the senario, it was something like:
> If you make a steep 180 turn from a headwind condition
> to a tailwind condition your stall speed will be
> increased. Induced windshear? Inertial lag? I don't
> remember.
>
> There were convincing arguments for both sides and I
> never saw it resolved. The logic from areodynamics experts
> pitted against highly experienced crop dusters and bush
> pilots who swore it was fact. Anyone?
>
> Rex
> Do not achive
Message 33
| 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: Old Wive's Tales |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
Don't forget the wind shear at low altitudes. Turning downwind at low
altitude, the wind shear tends to increase roll during the first 90 degrees
and decrease the roll during the last half of the turn.
Turning downwind to upwind works the opposite.
If you lose altitude during a downwind turn you are falling into a headwind
(slower moving air lower down). On the upwind turn if you lose altitude
you are descending into a decreasing wind and the airspeed will drop off
quickly.
The sudden change in airspeed with the unusual change in roll rates can make
maneuvers near the ground quite different than the theoretical platitudes.
Add in the optical illusions and of changes in ground speed and you have a
great formula for differences in opinion.
Jim Shumaker
> I beleive that this is due to the tendency of pilots
> to use ground references and aero-experts to only
> worry about air. When we turn from the wind to
> downwind, the ground speed increases and the turn
> widens. This is aerodynamically right as it is, but
> we see the change on the ground and try to "correct"
> it by tightening up the turn and slowing down airspeed
> to keep the turn and ground speed constant. Bad
> combination: Slowing down and higher "G's".
>
> Turning back into the wind would likely result in a
> relaxation of the stick to keep the turn and to
> increase the airspeed to maintain ground speed.
>
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! --
|