---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 02/08/04: 42 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:17 AM - Ultralight Weight Limits & Paint on the Lite (David Wright) 2. 05:50 AM - Re: 912-S Oil Cooler Failures (Len Shorethose) 3. 05:55 AM - Re: Re: NSI/CAP prop rpm (Ronald K. Stevens) 4. 06:33 AM - 2si Engine 460-F35 & the Lite (David Wright) 5. 06:37 AM - Re: 912-S Oil Cooler Failures (Dan Sherburn) 6. 06:44 AM - Lite (hausding, sid) 7. 07:00 AM - General Aviation......... (hausding, sid) 8. 08:06 AM - Re: Low Fuel Warning (Lowell Fitt) 9. 08:10 AM - Re: "Captive" PAX - WAS: Stick movement (Lowell Fitt) 10. 08:14 AM - Re: 912-S Oil Cooler Failures (Lowell Fitt) 11. 08:38 AM - Re: Low Fuel Warning (Steve Zakreski) 12. 09:01 AM - Re: 2si Engine 460-F35 & the Lite (JMCBEAN) 13. 09:05 AM - Re: new member saying Hi!! and lite paint (KITFOXPILOT@att.net) 14. 09:49 AM - Re: Ultralight Weight Limits & Paint on the Lite (Barbara Jones) 15. 09:49 AM - Re: Low Fuel Warning (Norm Beauchamp) 16. 10:09 AM - Re: Engine choice - Drag Producers. (Torgeir Mortensen) 17. 11:20 AM - Re: "Captive" PAX - WAS: Stick movement (Clifford Begnaud) 18. 11:48 AM - FOR SALE Super flite chemicals (David Dawe) 19. 12:22 PM - Re: SkyStar Status (kurt schrader) 20. 12:23 PM - Re: Low Fuel Warning (Torgeir Mortensen) 21. 12:56 PM - Re: Re: NSI/CAP prop rpm (kurt schrader) 22. 01:24 PM - Re: Re: SkyStar Status (Torgeir Mortensen) 23. 01:26 PM - Re: SkyStar Status (RiteAngle3@aol.com) 24. 01:35 PM - Re: Re: NSI/CAP prop rpm (Torgeir Mortensen) 25. 02:02 PM - Re: Re: Michel, Jabi 2200 (Michel Verheughe) 26. 02:07 PM - Winter WAS Engine choice - Drag Producers. (Michel Verheughe) 27. 02:20 PM - Re: Re: NSI/CAP prop rpm (Clem Nichols) 28. 02:51 PM - Re: Re: NSI/CAP prop rpm (dmorisse) 29. 02:55 PM - Re: Re: SkyStar Status (dmorisse) 30. 03:10 PM - Re: Re: NSI/CAP prop rpm (dmorisse) 31. 04:33 PM - Re: Classic IV - Instrument Panel Cover (Dash Cover) Installation (Grant Fluent) 32. 05:28 PM - Re: Re: SkyStar Status (kurt schrader) 33. 05:51 PM - Re: Re: NSI/CAP prop rpm (kurt schrader) 34. 05:56 PM - Re: Re: NSI/CAP prop rpm (kurt schrader) 35. 06:04 PM - Re: Re: NSI/CAP prop rpm (kurt schrader) 36. 06:11 PM - Re: Re: NSI/CAP prop rpm (Rick) 37. 06:11 PM - Re: Classic IV - Instrument Panel Cover (Dash Cover) Installation (kerrjohna@comcast.net) 38. 06:49 PM - Re: KITFOX FOR SALE (Arthur Nation) 39. 07:23 PM - Re: new member saying Hi!! and lite paint (Randy Daughenbaugh) 40. 08:09 PM - Re: "Captive" PAX - WAS: Stick movement (Jeff Hays) 41. 09:37 PM - Re: Re: NSI/CAP prop rpm (kurt schrader) 42. 10:25 PM - Re: Re: Michel, Jabi 2200 (kurt schrader) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:17:36 AM PST US From: "David Wright" Subject: Kitfox-List: Ultralight Weight Limits & Paint on the Lite --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Wright" Thanks to everyone for their feedback! I am building the Lite with the 2si engine. I'm beginning to regret that choice, even though I probably can't afford the Rotax just yet. The aircraft will probably be kept outside spring through Fall for a few seasons. I hope to either buy (very expensive) an enclosed trailer, or attempt to build one out of a used flatbed . Then I will at least have it somewhat protected round the clock. As I am new to the ultralight world, I have been concerned with the weight limits. In light of LSA, and all of your feedback, perhaps I will relax some in relation to taking the 254 lb weight limit so strictly. It would be nice to have the fabric fully protected and done with a pleasing, and visible, paint scheme. As for the silve paint replacing the Poly-Spray. That is on page 92 of the Poly-Fiber manual, Appendix A, as another choice in preparing Ultralight & Very Light Aircraft section. Polytone 220M Nevada Silver or 222M Rancho Silver are listed as top coat paint that can replace Poly-Spray. tx again ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:50:45 AM PST US From: "Len Shorethose" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 912-S Oil Cooler Failures --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Len Shorethose" John, I too have had a failure of the oil cooler bracket on my 912S. It cracked after about 225 hours. I have a replacement on order from Skystar but it's been over a month now and they still haven't shipped it. I have always had a terrible problem with vibration on this engine. I have always had problems with the engine kicking upon shutdown and slinging off the carbs. Even with triple safety wire, the carbs have slung off and broken the safety wire. I have also had my muffler crack more than once and the retaining springs have broken several times. But the ultimate in vibration happened to me shortly after Xmas. I was flying along at low altitude setting up for a high speed low pass at a nearby airstrip when my engine failed. I had enough airspeed built up to be able to glide to the runway safely and landed without incident. With limited tools that day, all I could determine was that I was getting absolutely no spark from the ignition system. After a day of troubleshooting with no luck, I trailered the plane back to my home airport and eventually pulled the engine. I found that quite a bit of the ignition wiring had chafed and that the ignition coils had been chafing against the right carb. The ignition modules looked good but I had no way to test them. But there was just nothing obviously wrong to cause this kind of problem. I was afraid that the modules might have failed. But both at the same time?? So I finally caved in and sent the engine to Lockwood in Florida. They called me and asked if I had ever had a prop strike? The reason was because they found that all five bolts attaching the flywheel had sheared!! They had never seen this before except in a prop strike situation. Well, I've never had a prop strike but I've sure had plenty of vibration, so that's all I can figure is the reason for the failure. I'm sure all five bolts didn't fail at once and that this had been an emergency just waiting to happen. My son and I are very lucky that this happened where it did and with no ugly results. Lockwood installed a new slipper clutch along with the new high torque starter for the 912S. The slipper clutch is supposed to be the fix for the vibration problem. We'll see. Now if I can just get Skystar to ship me the parts I have on order, I can get the engine re-mounted and see if the vibration problem has been eliminated. I ordered a new set of isolators. The old ones were four years old and looked OK but I figured I might as well replace them while the engine is off. Anyway, sorry to be so long winded about a simple oil cooler bracket! Len Shorethose....Series 5...912S ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Banes" Subject: Kitfox-List: 912-S Oil Cooler Failures > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Banes" > > Recently a friend of mine who flys a Rans S-7 related that his hangar mate's > Rans S-10 with a 912S had two oil cooler failures. These failures were > believed to be the result of engine vibration on the cooler. As part of the > second replacement he fabricated a rubber mounting system for the oil > cooler. Not many hours but no failures since. The plane has flown for > roughly a year. My friend's S-7 with a 912S came with a rubber type > mounting system for the oil cooler. He has had no failures but the plane > has flown only a few hours. > > The mounting system on the KF S-6 with 912S is all steel tubing with no > flexible isolation material such as rubber. Is there any experience with > oil coolers failing on KF-5/6 with 912S due to vibration? > > John Banes > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:55:20 AM PST US From: "Ronald K. Stevens" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: NSI/CAP prop rpm --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ronald K. Stevens" Kurt & Rick, I've got a CAP 140 that's 2.12:1 ratio. It was manufactured in '97 I think. So, that ratio was offered in the past. Ron kurt schrader wrote: >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > >Rick, > >That is what I thought. We have more to go on the >prop rpm. I forgot if Lance offers a 2:1 ratio in his >lineup. That would make it easier. > >If you go 2:1, will you limit the rpm at the ignition >to something less than 56-5800 rpm? You will be >beyond Warps suggested tip speed at that rpm and 2:1, >but I don't think it will hurt if you need to use it. >You will still be lower than most efficient in cruise >even at 2:1 and probably just noisy at max rpm. > >BTW The new KitPlanes has Vortelator Kits advertised >on page 4. It doesn't say exactly what they are, but >they are supposed to increase prop efficiency for >20-40 more rpm or 2-4 mph. That is a wild claim >without more specifics. I wonder if it isn't just >some dimple tape on the props like we talked about >before. > >Kurt S. > >--- Rick wrote: > > >>BTW I spoke with Darrell at warp. said they shoot >>for tip speed of 850FPS. >>So if I like the 5200 engine speed and do a 2:1 >>reduction that will yield a >>816FPS. May go 1.9 for 860 tip speed. I can always >>fudge up a bit on RPMs >>if needed. He says we are running the warp props too >>slow for best >>performance. So the math looks like this: >>5200/2:1=2600X72=187200/229.183=816FPS >> >>Rick >> >> > >__________________________________ >http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html > > > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:33:51 AM PST US From: "David Wright" Subject: Kitfox-List: 2si Engine 460-F35 & the Lite --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Wright" While i'm at it ..... Does any one out there have experience with the 2si engine? How has it been? Where's a good source for consumables for this engine? I"ve noticed that it has a needle size for the Bing 84 carb of "6O1". I cannot find this size listed in either the Aircraft Spruce or California Power Systems catalogs. I also cannot find a source for the "Unifilter" air filter that is 1.75" in diameter and 6" long. The C.P.S. catalog carries Unifilter's but only in a 4" long version. Aircraft is new and un-flown as of now but It's nice to know where to go when you need such things. I've had people give me the "eww" face when I've told them I bought this engine. Is it really that bad? Why would skystar select it if it was? Are there no other engine options light enough? Seems like Rotax lost customers when they dropped the 277 as I keep hearing and seeing aircraft that say they are designed for using that engine. Yeah, I'd like to try the 503, but Firewall-Forward Plus Engine rings up to almost $6700 via Skystar ... ... AND ... it makes my Lite not legal as an Ultralight weight-wise. Perhaps I shouldn't worry about that when I can afford it? The extra power w/be appreciated. tx ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:37:07 AM PST US From: "Dan Sherburn" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 912-S Oil Cooler Failures --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dan Sherburn" Len's message echoes something I've been hearing alot of lately...no response from Skystar. Does anyone have any updates? I'm trying to select a kit/company and they're one on my "short list". ----- Original Message ----- From: "Len Shorethose" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 912-S Oil Cooler Failures > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Len Shorethose" > > John, > > I too have had a failure of the oil cooler bracket on my 912S. It cracked > after about 225 hours. I have a replacement on order from Skystar but it's > been over a month now and they still haven't shipped it. > > I have always had a terrible problem with vibration on this engine. I have > always had problems with the engine kicking upon shutdown and slinging off > the carbs. Even with triple safety wire, the carbs have slung off and > broken the safety wire. I have also had my muffler crack more than once and > the retaining springs have broken several times. > > But the ultimate in vibration happened to me shortly after Xmas. I was > flying along at low altitude setting up for a high speed low pass at a > nearby airstrip when my engine failed. I had enough airspeed built up to be > able to glide to the runway safely and landed without incident. With > limited tools that day, all I could determine was that I was getting > absolutely no spark from the ignition system. After a day of troubleshooting > with no luck, I trailered the plane back to my home airport and eventually > pulled the engine. I found that quite a bit of the ignition wiring had > chafed and that the ignition coils had been chafing against the right carb. > The ignition modules looked good but I had no way to test them. But there > was just nothing obviously wrong to cause this kind of problem. I was > afraid that the modules might have failed. But both at the same time?? So > I finally caved in and sent the engine to Lockwood in Florida. > > They called me and asked if I had ever had a prop strike? The reason was > because they found that all five bolts attaching the flywheel had sheared!! > They had never seen this before except in a prop strike situation. Well, > I've never had a prop strike but I've sure had plenty of vibration, so > that's all I can figure is the reason for the failure. I'm sure all five > bolts didn't fail at once and that this had been an emergency just waiting > to happen. My son and I are very lucky that this happened where it did and > with no ugly results. > > Lockwood installed a new slipper clutch along with the new high torque > starter for the 912S. The slipper clutch is supposed to be the fix for the > vibration problem. We'll see. Now if I can just get Skystar to ship me > the parts I have on order, I can get the engine re-mounted and see if the > vibration problem has been eliminated. I ordered a new set of isolators. > The old ones were four years old and looked OK but I figured I might as well > replace them while the engine is off. > > Anyway, sorry to be so long winded about a simple oil cooler bracket! > > Len Shorethose....Series 5...912S > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Banes" > To: > Subject: Kitfox-List: 912-S Oil Cooler Failures > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Banes" > > > > Recently a friend of mine who flys a Rans S-7 related that his hangar > mate's > > Rans S-10 with a 912S had two oil cooler failures. These failures were > > believed to be the result of engine vibration on the cooler. As part of > the > > second replacement he fabricated a rubber mounting system for the oil > > cooler. Not many hours but no failures since. The plane has flown for > > roughly a year. My friend's S-7 with a 912S came with a rubber type > > mounting system for the oil cooler. He has had no failures but the plane > > has flown only a few hours. > > > > The mounting system on the KF S-6 with 912S is all steel tubing with no > > flexible isolation material such as rubber. Is there any experience with > > oil coolers failing on KF-5/6 with 912S due to vibration? > > > > John Banes > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:44:28 AM PST US From: "hausding, sid" Subject: Kitfox-List: Lite --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "hausding, sid" Dave, just a thought on temporary shelter to help with your painting situation. The equipment catalogs and most mechanically oriented magazines nowdays carry ads for lightweight, tiedown and stake type temporary garages or shelters - and, for only a couple hundred bucks. Depending on how big or complete you want the overhead shelter to be........get persmission from the FBO to temporarily place one and forget the UV concerns and sunlight degradation. IMO You can always tear it down and take it to Oshkosh for the camping week of the flyin! There are always lots of them being used by the aviation crowd nowdays. Sid ------------------------ I am building the Lite with the 2si engine. I'm beginning to regret that choice, even though I probably can't afford the Rotax just yet. The aircraft will probably be kept outside spring through Fall for a few seasons. I hope to either buy (very expensive) an enclosed trailer, or attempt to build one out of a used flatbed . Then I will at least have it somewhat protected round the clock. As I am new to the ultralight world, I have been concerned with the weight limits. In light of LSA, and all of your feedback, perhaps I will relax some in relation to taking the 254 lb weight limit so strictly. It would be nice to have the fabric fully protected and done with a pleasing, and visible, paint scheme. As for the silve paint replacing the Poly-Spray. That is on page 92 of the Poly-Fiber manual, Appendix A, as another choice in preparing Ultralight & Very Light Aircraft section. Polytone 220M Nevada Silver or 222M Rancho Silver are listed as top coat paint that can replace Poly-Spray. tx again ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:00:46 AM PST US From: "hausding, sid" Subject: Kitfox-List: General Aviation......... HTML_TAG_EXISTS_TBODY --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "hausding, sid" Easy Dan, as you will hear from everybody soon, the lightweight and homebuilding aviation industry is always fluctuating closely with the economy due to the start up costs and low volume situations and returns with most companies... ..don't discount any of the established designs or any of the 'companies' that are currently carrying the rights and production to any of them. Its the plane design and the aftermarket groups and forums that should really be your deciding factors. I will bend your ear Monday about the past years of all the smaller companies and how they come and go and prosper and retreat, and then hang on and continue to hold their own.............find the design or style you like and then go for it with confidence that their are hundreds if not thousands, of others out there to supply and assist. Sid ------------------------- Len's message echoes something I've been hearing alot of lately...no response from Skystar. Does anyone have any updates? I'm trying to select a kit/company and they're one on my "short list". ----- Original Message ----- From: "Len Shorethose" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 912-S Oil Cooler Failures > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Len Shorethose" > > John, > > I too have had a failure of the oil cooler bracket on my 912S. It cracked > after about 225 hours. I have a replacement on order from Skystar but it's > been over a month now and they still haven't shipped it. > > I have always had a terrible problem with vibration on this engine. I have > always had problems with the engine kicking upon shutdown and slinging off > the carbs. Even with triple safety wire, the carbs have slung off and > broken the safety wire. I have also had my muffler crack more than once and > the retaining springs have broken several times. > > But the ultimate in vibration happened to me shortly after Xmas. I was > flying along at low altitude setting up for a high speed low pass at a > nearby airstrip when my engine failed. I had enough airspeed built up to be > able to glide to the runway safely and landed without incident. With > limited tools that day, all I could determine was that I was getting > absolutely no spark from the ignition system. After a day of troubleshooting > with no luck, I trailered the plane back to my home airport and eventually > pulled the engine. I found that quite a bit of the ignition wiring had > chafed and that the ignition coils had been chafing against the right carb. > The ignition modules looked good but I had no way to test them. But there > was just nothing obviously wrong to cause this kind of problem. I was > afraid that the modules might have failed. But both at the same time?? So > I finally caved in and sent the engine to Lockwood in Florida. > > They called me and asked if I had ever had a prop strike? The reason was > because they found that all five bolts attaching the flywheel had sheared!! > They had never seen this before except in a prop strike situation. Well, > I've never had a prop strike but I've sure had plenty of vibration, so > that's all I can figure is the reason for the failure. I'm sure all five > bolts didn't fail at once and that this had been an emergency just waiting > to happen. My son and I are very lucky that this happened where it did and > with no ugly results. > > Lockwood installed a new slipper clutch along with the new high torque > starter for the 912S. The slipper clutch is supposed to be the fix for the > vibration problem. We'll see. Now if I can just get Skystar to ship me > the parts I have on order, I can get the engine re-mounted and see if the > vibration problem has been eliminated. I ordered a new set of isolators. > The old ones were four years old and looked OK but I figured I might as well > replace them while the engine is off. > > Anyway, sorry to be so long winded about a simple oil cooler bracket! > > Len Shorethose....Series 5...912S > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Banes" > To: > Subject: Kitfox-List: 912-S Oil Cooler Failures > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Banes" > > > > Recently a friend of mine who flys a Rans S-7 related that his hangar > mate's > > Rans S-10 with a 912S had two oil cooler failures. These failures were > > believed to be the result of engine vibration on the cooler. As part of > the > > second replacement he fabricated a rubber mounting system for the oil > > cooler. Not many hours but no failures since. The plane has flown for > > roughly a year. My friend's S-7 with a 912S came with a rubber type > > mounting system for the oil cooler. He has had no failures but the plane > > has flown only a few hours. > > > > The mounting system on the KF S-6 with 912S is all steel tubing with no > > flexible isolation material such as rubber. Is there any experience with > > oil coolers failing on KF-5/6 with 912S due to vibration? > > > > John Banes > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 08:06:22 AM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Low Fuel Warning --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" Norm, if it is the optical light, you will have to paint the header tank and possibly put some black tape over the fuel lines if they are transparent and can allow light to enter the header tank. To check this idea out you might try wrapping the tank in a piece of black Vinyl and see what happens. Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norm Beauchamp" Subject: Kitfox-List: Low Fuel Warning > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Norm Beauchamp > > I have just discovered I have the same problem as some others have had. > The blank-it-blank low fuel warn light won't work. I have checked and > double checked the wiring, and its been right every time. I even removed > it from the tank and shined a flashlight on it, no light If some has > one that is not hooked up, would you mind reading the ohms between the > leads and sending them to me. At least then I'll have some idea of what > I should see. On the same subject. Anyone know where these are > manufactured? Maybe it was the shelf life here at the hanger. Hell > it's only seven years old, but never been used!. > > Took my first tail dragger training today. Things are coming together. > Getting close to taxi time. Thanks Norm > > Do not archive. > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:10:04 AM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: "Captive" PAX - WAS: Stick movement --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clifford Begnaud" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: "Captive" PAX - WAS: Stick movement > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" > > Mike, > Also, considering the number of broken welds experienced by Kitfox owners > over the years, I would suggest that the probability of a broken stick is > not all that remote. Just my 2 cents. > My passenger side stick will stay right where it is. > Best Regards, > Cliff > Gotta chime in here for the sake of clarity. I know of one builder that made a totally wrong engine choice because of a statement like this with no clarification. Yes, there have been failures at the rudder pedal weldment. I personally am not aware of any other weld failure with the possible exception of the tube gear collapsing under excessive side loads and it is debatable as to the welds role in the failure. If there have been other weld failure modes that I am not aware of, please correct me. I have gone through every one of the NTSB accident reports- tons of pilot error, some fuel problems, but never one where the stick comes off in the pilot's hand. Please no one should get the impression that the Kitfox is a poorly welded or constructed kit. We are free to have opinions and to express them and to add whatever redundency we wish in our airplanes, but I know if at least two lurkers that are considering a Kitfox as a project or purchase, and staements like this could be a deal killer. Respectfully, Lowell > > >(I am 56) my passenger should get a fair chance to crash ... not > vertically. > > > > >I always worry that the Mig welded control column might be > > >welded by the same welder as the rudder pedals, so I want > > >the second stick in case the first breaks off ... :) > > > > You guys have your probabilities all mixed up. You are a lot more > > likely to have the passenger's knees interfering with your operation > > of the controls than to become incapacitated or have the stick break > > off in your hand. > > > > Mike G. > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 08:14:11 AM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 912-S Oil Cooler Failures --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" John, Earl's Performance Products, the original supplier of the oil cooler specifically recommended a cushioned mount for the oil cooler. They were primarily manufactured for the high performance auto industry and maybe SS felt that this recommendation was due to road stresses. I made my own way back then using the shock mounts SS supplies for the ignition module. With the added vibration from the US, this would be a must do for my comfort. Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Banes" Subject: Kitfox-List: 912-S Oil Cooler Failures > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Banes" > > Recently a friend of mine who flys a Rans S-7 related that his hangar mate's > Rans S-10 with a 912S had two oil cooler failures. These failures were > believed to be the result of engine vibration on the cooler. As part of the > second replacement he fabricated a rubber mounting system for the oil > cooler. Not many hours but no failures since. The plane has flown for > roughly a year. My friend's S-7 with a 912S came with a rubber type > mounting system for the oil cooler. He has had no failures but the plane > has flown only a few hours. > > The mounting system on the KF S-6 with 912S is all steel tubing with no > flexible isolation material such as rubber. Is there any experience with > oil coolers failing on KF-5/6 with 912S due to vibration? > > John Banes > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 08:38:19 AM PST US From: Steve Zakreski Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Low Fuel Warning --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski Also, the optical sensor has a small red light on the wire end of the sensor itself which should come on when power is fed to the unit and the tip is not immersed in fluid. SteveZ Calgary -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Low Fuel Warning --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" Norm, if it is the optical light, you will have to paint the header tank and possibly put some black tape over the fuel lines if they are transparent and can allow light to enter the header tank. To check this idea out you might try wrapping the tank in a piece of black Vinyl and see what happens. Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norm Beauchamp" Subject: Kitfox-List: Low Fuel Warning > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Norm Beauchamp > > I have just discovered I have the same problem as some others have had. > The blank-it-blank low fuel warn light won't work. I have checked and > double checked the wiring, and its been right every time. I even removed > it from the tank and shined a flashlight on it, no light If some has > one that is not hooked up, would you mind reading the ohms between the > leads and sending them to me. At least then I'll have some idea of what > I should see. On the same subject. Anyone know where these are > manufactured? Maybe it was the shelf life here at the hanger. Hell > it's only seven years old, but never been used!. > > Took my first tail dragger training today. Things are coming together. > Getting close to taxi time. Thanks Norm > > Do not archive. > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 09:01:47 AM PST US From: "JMCBEAN" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 2si Engine 460-F35 & the Lite --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "JMCBEAN" David, Sorry about the silver.... Didn't realize they were poly-tone. There are some that have used automotive style paints and they say you don't need the UV under them. As far as the 2si... Most will turn their nose up at it because it's a Kiyuna...... It really isn't... according to a Kiyuna rep that I talked to. It is similar though. I have flown and operated the Lite with the 2si and found it to be a nice little airplane. I personally would use the 503, but as you said.. it is no longer an ultralight.. legally. But, If you aren't going to worry about the weight... and you can stay under the gross weight... I think I would go 503.... But that's a personal thing. Blue Skies!! John & Debra McBean "The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground" -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of David Wright Subject: Kitfox-List: 2si Engine 460-F35 & the Lite --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Wright" While i'm at it ..... Does any one out there have experience with the 2si engine? How has it been? Where's a good source for consumables for this engine? I"ve noticed that it has a needle size for the Bing 84 carb of "6O1". I cannot find this size listed in either the Aircraft Spruce or California Power Systems catalogs. I also cannot find a source for the "Unifilter" air filter that is 1.75" in diameter and 6" long. The C.P.S. catalog carries Unifilter's but only in a 4" long version. Aircraft is new and un-flown as of now but It's nice to know where to go when you need such things. I've had people give me the "eww" face when I've told them I bought this engine. Is it really that bad? Why would skystar select it if it was? Are there no other engine options light enough? Seems like Rotax lost customers when they dropped the 277 as I keep hearing and seeing aircraft that say they are designed for using that engine. Yeah, I'd like to try the 503, but Firewall-Forward Plus Engine rings up to almost $6700 via Skystar ... ... AND ... it makes my Lite not legal as an Ultralight weight-wise. Perhaps I shouldn't worry about that when I can afford it? The extra power w/be appreciated. tx ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 09:05:16 AM PST US From: KITFOXPILOT@att.net Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: new member saying Hi!! and lite paint --> Kitfox-List message posted by: KITFOXPILOT@att.net Welcome, never used latex on a fabric plane before, wish you luck! I would be interested in some photos of before and after of the repair you are going to make to the spar attach points on your plane. I have a model IV 1200 with a 912S. Ray > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jim Chuk" > > Hi all, Jim Chuk here. I live in COLD northern MN and have been flying a Himax > for the last 3 years or so. I'm new to this group, I just bought a Kitfox 3 a > week ago that is in need of a bit of work. Some damage was done to one wing in > a trailering incident and the top of the plane where the wings attach has been > cut off with a new one from skystar ready to be welded in. A friend of mine who > has built a few planes and worked on others didn't think it was much of a > problem to fix so after he told me he would help, I bought it. The plane needs > to be covered of course and as I want to keep it as light as possible, I've been > thinking about useing latex paint. I'm on the Ison aircraft (makers of the > Minimax and Himax aircraft) builders website and a number of them have used > latex with (they said) good results. I guess I'm just throwing the thought > out there to see what youall think. I know it would be far less expensive to > use but of course one has to be concerned with t! > he results also. Thanks, Jim > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 09:49:11 AM PST US From: Barbara Jones Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ultralight Weight Limits & Paint on the Lite --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Barbara Jones > As for the silve paint replacing the Poly-Spray. That is on page 92 of the > Poly-Fiber manual, Appendix A, as another choice in preparing Ultralight & > Very Light Aircraft section. Polytone 220M Nevada Silver or 222M Rancho > Silver are listed as top coat paint that can replace Poly-Spray. David, That is interesting what you found about the silver in Poly-Tone. My manual is the April 1998 version and does not have that information. I am interested in this because I painted my Classic 4 with the Poly-Tone "Rancho Silver" I also applied the three cross coats of Poly-Spray on all the top and sides and one cross coat on all the bottoms. I'm just wondering if I have some extra UV protection I didn't know I had. For what its worth, I once saw an Avid that was finished in Poly-Spray only. The finish was very nice looking. The owner said he buffed it with flour to get that finished look. Tom Jones, Classic 4, 503 Rotax, La Pine, OR ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 09:49:11 AM PST US From: Norm Beauchamp Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Low Fuel Warning --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Norm Beauchamp Thanks for the replies, Torgeir, I eventually ended up with my Allied Electronics Catalog. At the hanger I left a piece of paper with what I believe to be the manufacturer of the unit. No address, phone numbers, zip codes, zilch. I'll bring it home and do a search. Lowell, From the experiences others have had and related, I had already painted the tank black. I may be confusing the issue here. The push to test switch and light work. But with no fuel in the tank, the warning light will not work as it should. I figured maybe it wasn't getting enough light, so I removed it from the tank figuring the light would surely come on. No light! Hell!! So I shined a flashlight on it. No light. The fuel vent lines were the only clear lines into the tank, and they have long sense yellowed. Steve, If I read you correctly, I should see a small red light on the sensor just out side the tank if empty, and the unit is operating properly. No light. It sounded like a good option. I guess I'll just have to rely on my two eyes and the site gauges. Norm ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 10:09:15 AM PST US From: Torgeir Mortensen Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice - Drag Producers. --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen Hi Vic, Just re-read my post (!), -and found that I've not responded to (the most important .. :) ) your last question.. Yes, the sun is back- up here - in the snowy North , the 21 of January ,we celebrated the sun's return with "sun cake" (!). So, I'm ready to fly (anytime), but just now it's howling down (the snow), got some 12 inches (or a little bit more) during last 24 h. Yes-, it's true. First thing to do-, -is to crank up the 532 and fly as much as I can, - when it's stopping snowing!!! cheers Torgeir. Torgeir Mortensen wrote: > > Vic, > > Yes, this is the wall we'll hit sooner or later. :) > > The C.G. trim relations is also a good point to observe. In our > Kitfoxe's it is easy to see the tail, have a look at the tail when > flying. If the elevator is straight aligned there is less drag from the > tail, if the tail need to lift or pull there is more drag from the tail. > > The kitfox is a great plane to manipulate during flight, this due to the > flapperon (or- did you said trimeron?). As we can change the center of > lift- a little, as well as the main wings angle, we have a good tool to > adjust for the optimal performance. This is "one" of the best arguments > to keep the AC in balance. > > The old "Avid" profile is a typical low speed profile, and show a huge > amount of drag if overspeeded. > > Torgeir. > > Vic Jacko wrote: > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" > > > > Torgeir, > > > > You hit upon a very important element of speed and efficiency, "induced > > drag due to lift". Heavy airplanes cost more to fly and they fly slower > > than light airplanes for this reason. Build it light (read, very light) > > and do all the streaming mods that work even a little bit. Streamlining > > mods have a compounding effect on each other and those who do them all > > correct will have a faster airplane than their buddy who leaves out a few or > > does not make the mods correctly. > > > > The other item I might mention is to experiment with the balance of the > > aircraft. A nose heavy airplane will create a lot of induced drag just to > > keep the airplane flying . If the airplane is balanced the elevator will > > fly streamlined with little induced drag to keep the nose up. > > The wing creates a "lot" of extra drag with a nose heavy airplane. Of > > course you know all these things but I thought it would not hurt to repeat a > > good thing! > > > > Can you-all see the light of day yet? Give us a report on how short your > > days are, or conversely, how long your nights are! > > > > Vic > > > > 34 degrees North Latitude > > > > do not archive > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Torgeir Mortensen" > > To: > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice - Drag Producers. > > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen > > > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > > > > > > You've just touched my favorite theme. :-) > > > Well, We all sure- have different motivations for streamlining our > > > aircraft's, even our "draggy" Foxes. :) > > > > > > Some like to have "a little" more speed, others a lesser "fuel bill" > > > (like me, we pay approx. 5 US$ pr. gallon- for ordinary 95 octane > > > petrol). > > > > > > Other again just like to see "how good she can be"- just for the > > > aviation experience... :) > > > > > > For me, the streamlining is very "fun" as well. As you can measure the > > > improvement -or no improvement at all, after the "modification". > > > > > > (For the "old" Fox models, there is a "few" thing you can do to lessen > > > the drag, -but all this is in the archive. Another thing, not to forget, > > > - is the induced drag due to lift.) > > > > > > > > > Since this topics is about "front end drag" and round cowl, have a look > > > at those "real" inventors at the NASA site. > > > > > > > > > Here is the link: > > > > > > http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter1.html#Chapt1-28 > > > > > > Interesting, isn't it ? > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > Torgeir. > > > > > > > > > John Larsen wrote: > > > > > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen > > > > > > > > The round cowl is really a matter of frontal area drag, not how the air > > > > flows through the cowl. Rare Bear has twice the horsepower of the > > > > winning P-51, but lost again this year. > > > > > > > > Paul Seehafer wrote: > > > > > > > > >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" > > > > > > > > > >Hi Jeff: > > > > > > > > > >I won't claim to be an expert on aerodynamics, but I was once told that > > the > > > > >frontal area of the radial engine is really not that big of a deal > > because > > > > >most of the drag is from the prop disc. And when you think about the > > Reno > > > > >Air Racers or the WWII fighters, that seems to hold true. Last I > > recall one > > > > >of the fastest piston powered aircraft in the race group was a > > round-engined > > > > >Bearcat. While it would make perfect sense that a smooth cowl should > > > > >create less drag, apparently it is not as critical as the rest of the > > > > >airframe? But, I'm just repeating what I heard. Maybe someone with > > more > > > > >knowledge can shed some light on this theory. > > > > > > > > > >It would be really interesting to hear from someone on the list that > > > > >converted from a round cowl to a smooth cowl but kept the same engine > > and > > > > >prop combination. > > > > > > > > > >Paul Seehafer > > > > >Central Wisconsin > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > > > >From: > > > > >To: > > > > >Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice - Drag Producers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>My series 5 with my IO-240B cruises at 120 mph at 2200 rpm, > > > > >>and I can exceed VNE in level flight at full throttle. I have > > > > >>the aluminum gear which just hangs out in the breeze, and > > > > >>I made no attempt to bury the "bar" as some people do. (actually > > > > >>a waste of time, since it's all turbulated air underneath anyway, > > > > >>and the bar is inside the boundary layer - But that's another > > > > >>issue that I know many would argue about). > > > > >> > > > > >>I think the real drag producer on the fox is the lift struts, OR > > > > >>the round cowl. I made foam core fiberglass airfoils for my > > > > >>lift struts, based on a recomendation of Dr. Michael Selig at > > > > >>UIUC. The other killer is the round cowl. You could spend the rest > > > > >>of your life airfoiling and smoothing everything else on the plane, > > > > >>but never overcome the drag from that round cowl. > > > > >> > > > > >>It never ceases to amaze me, that people will spend all their time > > > > >>trying to airfoil and smooth everything on a Kitfox, and yet they > > > > >>still have a round cowl on the front ... > > > > >> > > > > >>Some other BIG time waster's are trying to hide all the float attach > > > > >>fittings, gas caps, etc. The Kitfox does not have laminar flow > > > > >>airfoils, smooth glass fueslage, etc. Basically all the air along > > > > >>the fuelage, and wings is turbulent air within 2-3 inches of the > > > > >>skin. You can put pretty much anything you want in this area, and > > > > >>it will NOT affect drag. The things that affect drag on a Kitfox, are > > > > >>items that stick out well into the airstream and have a lot of frontal > > > > >>area. Like the Lift Struts, The cowl, the gear legs and wheels... > > > > >> > > > > >>I think Ron's choice is pretty reasonable actually. If the price is > > > > >>right (and knowing Ron it is) he ends up with a very reliable engine. > > > > >>With a much better history that some of the engine choices I've seen > > > > >>out there. > > > > >> > > > > >>Jeff Hays > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>Original Message: > > > > >>----------------- > > > > >>From: Lowell Fitt lcfitt@inreach.com > > > > >>Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:13:59 -0800 > > > > >>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > > > > >>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" > > > > >> > > > > >>Ron, > > > > >>It is interesting that you compare the Whitman Tailwind with the > > Series 5. > > > > >>My suggestion is that to get 115 cruise, you concentrate on every bit > > of > > > > >>fairing that you can possibly do. The tailwind is a very clean > > airplane > > > > >>whereas the 5 as delivered is not so clean. With just a tad more HP > > than > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>R-912, my guess is that you will cruise in more the 90 mph range. I > > fly > > > > >>with a group of 912 UL powered Model IVs, some not so clean and one > > > > >>weighing in at 605 lbs and the general cruise is in the mid 90s. My > > > > >>airplane is very clean and I can get 115, but it is at maximum cruise > > RPM > > > > >>5500. > > > > >> > > > > >>Lowell > > > > >> > > > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > > >>From: "Ron" > > > > >>To: > > > > >>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron" > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Hi Milt, > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Jeff Hays hit it right on the head when he said that I would do it > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >because > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>the price was great. It will cost me $6000 to install a zero time > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >C-85 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>with electrical system. A C-85 in a Wittman Tailwind will cruise it > > at > > > > >>>145mph. Its empty wt. is the same as the Series 5. My climb rate > > will > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>down to about 600fpm but my cruise should be about 115. The higher > > hp > > > > >>>engines will show their hp mostly in climb performance. I'll still be > > a > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>lot > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>>better than a Cessna 140...I'll be happy. I hear that the cost of > > a > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >new > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>912s with firewall forward is over 17K now.......Retirement pension > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >allows > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>for the C-85 at about 1/3 that cost. > > > > >>>Just got home from Oshkosh where they had the yearly ski plane/ chili > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>fest. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>>7 deg temp but no wind and blue skies made for a great day. Lots of > > neat > > > > >>>planes on skis. No Kitfoxes, darn..... > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Ron N55KF > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Milt's Kitfox Stuff" > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>>Ron, > > > > >>>>I would do some head scratching before I put a C-85 on a Series V > > and > > > > >>>>carefully consider a 912 in light of the weight to power ratio. I'm > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>putting > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>>a Franklin A-235 on my Series V that offers 125 hp. Once I get it > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>flying > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>and put some time on it, I plan to upgrade to high compression > > pistons > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>which > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>>will yield 145 hp. At that power to weight ratio I should have a > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >pretty > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>good capability for the cost... about $14-$15K. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>Good Luck, > > > > >>>>Milt > > > > >>>>----- Original Message ----- > > > > >>>>From: "Ron" > > > > >>>>To: > > > > >>>>Subject: Kitfox-List: Engine choice > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron" > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>Hello Listers, > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>I have a Model 5 which I will rebuild in the future and I'm > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>considering > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>>a > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>>>C-85 with starter and alternator. Has anyone heard of a C-85 in a > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>Kitfox? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>>>Thanks, Ron N55KF > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 11:20:30 AM PST US From: "Clifford Begnaud" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: "Captive" PAX - WAS: Stick movement --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" Ok Lowell, I should clarify for those lurkers. First, there have been a LOT of rudder pedal weld failures and a few gear failures. You said they were caused by "excessive" side loads, maybe, I know of one that failed with NO side load at all. Frankly, the gear and the rudder pedals should have been engineered to withstand all the loads that could be expected in a variety of uses. The reality is that the engineers have to make assumptions and tradeoffs in everything that they do. They were mistaken about how strong the rudder pedals would be in real life use, to their credit, they fixed the problem. Were they also mistaken about the strength of the gear? Maybe, maybe not, it could be that the design is just fine but there were some bad welds. After all, the welding is done by humans and humans make mistakes. Is any of this meant to be to the degradation of skystar? Absolutely NOT! I love the kitfox and have now owned 3 of them. I'll likely own at least one more! Every kit company in existence has made mistakes, including skystar. I think we should be able to air all the dirty laundry in an open and honest manner without it being a slam against Skystar. I'm sorry if seemed like I was slamming Skystar, I wasn't. I'm one of the biggest kitfox lovers out there! So to you lurkers out there considering a kitfox, by all means buy one. They are the best in category. It's better to buy it knowing where the problems are than to be in the dark. Best Regards, Cliff do not archive > > > Gotta chime in here for the sake of clarity. > > I know of one builder that made a totally wrong engine choice because of a > statement like this with no clarification. > > Yes, there have been failures at the rudder pedal weldment. I personally am > not aware of any other weld failure with the possible exception of the tube > gear collapsing under excessive side loads and it is debatable as to the > welds role in the failure. If there have been other weld failure modes that > I am not aware of, please correct me. I have gone through every one of the > NTSB accident reports- tons of pilot error, some fuel problems, but never > one where the stick comes off in the pilot's hand. Please no one should get > the impression that the Kitfox is a poorly welded or constructed kit. > > We are free to have opinions and to express them and to add whatever > redundency we wish in our airplanes, but I know if at least two lurkers that > are considering a Kitfox as a project or purchase, and staements like this > could be a deal killer. > > Respectfully, Lowell > > > > >(I am 56) my passenger should get a fair chance to crash ... not > > vertically. > > > > > > >I always worry that the Mig welded control column might be > > > >welded by the same welder as the rudder pedals, so I want > > > >the second stick in case the first breaks off ... :) > > > > > > You guys have your probabilities all mixed up. You are a lot more > > > likely to have the passenger's knees interfering with your operation > > > of the controls than to become incapacitated or have the stick break > > > off in your hand. > > > > > > Mike G. > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 11:48:23 AM PST US From: "David Dawe" Subject: Kitfox-List: FOR SALE Super flite chemicals --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Dawe" half price cans never opened ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torgeir Mortensen" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Low Fuel Warning > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen > > Hi Norm, > > > Just wondered if your system is using the "optocoupler", this is a > device consisting of one LED and an photosensor. This system was > described in the UKAVID 3 newsletter in mid 95, think I've got a copy of > this letter (as a pdf file). Well, here is a direct link to the device > I'm thinking about: > > http://rswww.com/cgi-bin/bv/search/SearchDisplay.jsp?3253650031=3253650031&cacheID=ukie > > Make sure you use all the part of this address link. > > This is RS component in UK, however you'll find them in US as well. > > Here is their international start point: > > http://www.rs-components.com/index.html > > > Torgeir. > > > Norm Beauchamp wrote: > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Norm Beauchamp > > > > I have just discovered I have the same problem as some others have had. > > The blank-it-blank low fuel warn light won't work. I have checked and > > double checked the wiring, and its been right every time. I even removed > > it from the tank and shined a flashlight on it, no light If some has > > one that is not hooked up, would you mind reading the ohms between the > > leads and sending them to me. At least then I'll have some idea of what > > I should see. On the same subject. Anyone know where these are > > manufactured? Maybe it was the shelf life here at the hanger. Hell > > it's only seven years old, but never been used!. > > > > Took my first tail dragger training today. Things are coming together. > > Getting close to taxi time. Thanks Norm > > > > Do not archive. > > > > ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 12:22:44 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: SkyStar Status --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader To my understanding, they are busy dividing themselvers into 2 units to produce kits and approved sport aircraft. Anyone know any different? Kurt S. --- Dan Sherburn wrote: > > Len's message echoes something I've been hearing > alot of > lately...no response from Skystar. Does anyone have > any > updates? I'm trying to select a kit/company and > they're one > on my "short list". __________________________________ http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 12:23:50 PM PST US From: Torgeir Mortensen Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Low Fuel Warning --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen Hi Norm, My pleasure! Sometime ago I asked Graham Laucht about using stuff from the "UKAVID newsletter" in the Kitfox list, Graham said; no problem, as long as the origin publisher is credited! Well-, this is from the UKAVID Winter 94 -, the electrical drawing of the low fuel and low oil warning system. I've sent this drawing to the sporflight "picture site". This is the drawing showing all the parts, included in this warning system. There is a test switch, to test both systems for functionality, if this test work the system is OK. The system has very few components and are very reliable.. However, can remember that someone mentioned a problem with the sensor installed in the "feeder" tank. The problem was that the additives in "autogas" seems to "melt" the plastic lens in the sensor device. If you are using the "100LL", there should be no problem... I'm sure someone with experience here can jump in. (This sensors P/N (part number) is: 317-803 from RS Component). OK. here is the direct link to the schematic: http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1076271459 Enjoy. Torgeir. Norm Beauchamp wrote: > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Norm Beauchamp > > Thanks for the replies, > Torgeir, > I eventually ended up with my Allied Electronics Catalog. At the hanger I left > a piece of paper with what I believe to be the manufacturer of the unit. No > address, phone numbers, zip codes, zilch. I'll bring it home and do a search. > > Lowell, > >From the experiences others have had and related, I had already painted the tank > black. I may be confusing the issue here. The push to test switch and light > work. > But with no fuel in the tank, the warning light will not work as it should. I > figured maybe it wasn't getting enough light, so I removed it from the tank > figuring the light would surely come on. No light! Hell!! So I shined a > flashlight on it. No light. > The fuel vent lines were the only clear lines into the tank, and they have long > sense yellowed. > > Steve, > If I read you correctly, I should see a small red light on the sensor just out > side the tank if empty, and the unit is operating properly. No light. > > It sounded like a good option. I guess I'll just have to rely on my two eyes > and the site gauges. Norm > ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 12:56:48 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: NSI/CAP prop rpm --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Ok, I finally found the list of ratios. This manual is at least 4 years old though. There are 16 different ratios available from NSI ranging from 1.622 to 3.409:1. Ron, your 2.129 is listed and also 2.031 and 1.939 for being close to 2:1. With all Rick's power, he could even go for the 1.939 and do well too. My engine shakes a bit when I load it up with too much prop. Much more testing to do, but cruise is not good in the lower 3000 range unless you have the power back too. Around 3900 is about best for my engine for smoothness. I would like to run the engine a bit slower and the prop faster too, if it could be smooth. Mine does go into and out of harmonics in some places. Interesting subject. Kurt S. --- "Ronald K. Stevens" wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ronald K. > Stevens" > > Kurt & Rick, > > I've got a CAP 140 that's 2.12:1 ratio. It was > manufactured in '97 I > think. So, that ratio was offered in the past. > > Ron > > kurt schrader wrote: > > >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > > > >Rick, > > > >That is what I thought. We have more to go on the > >prop rpm. I forgot if Lance offers a 2:1 ratio in > his > >lineup. That would make it easier. __________________________________ http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 01:24:15 PM PST US From: Torgeir Mortensen Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: SkyStar Status --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen Hi Kurt, The origin source is here: http://www.skystar.com/fromthepres.htm Here is the latest news, from the "new" President: .............................. Changes at SkyStar: As Sport Pilot approaches, SkyStar has reorganized the management structure in order to capitalize on this opportunity. SkyStar Aircraft has divided itself into two parts. The part we are all familiar with, that is, makers of the famed line of Kitfox Aircraft, will now be known as SkyStar Aircraft Corporation, Experimental/Manufacturing Division. I will be heading up this division as the new President and CEO. The newly created SkyStar Aircraft Corporation, Sport Plane Division will be under the direction of former SkyStar President, Ed Downs. Mr. Downs will now serve as the President of the Sport Plane Division. This adjustment to our management structure will allow the SkyStar team to focus our expertise where it is most needed. While I will remain dedicated to our existing line of kit aircraft, customer service, manufacturing, and after-market products, Ed will be able to focus his considerable experience in aircraft certification and training towards both the use of kits and ready-to-fly airplanes by the thousands of sport pilots who may be in the system in only a few months. The Sport Pilot rule is going to open up new markets for both kits and certified planes, and we need to be ready to act, once the opportunities are formalized. The reorganization will allow us to do this. SkyStar has shared in dealing with the overall business downturn that struck the entire aviation industry following 9/11, but the future is encouraging as the economy recovers and Sport Pilot draws near. Sales are already up by 25% over last years average, and the trend is continuing. Let us never forget the struggles of 2002 & 2003 and allow those struggles to make us stronger. 2004 is showing great promise for SkyStar. We have many new options in the fire for existing builders and new customers. I am looking forward in making 2004 a milestone year for SkyStar and its customers. Regards, Frank Miller President/CEO SkyStar Aircraft Corp. Experimental/Manufacturing Division ........................................... Torgeir. kurt schrader wrote: > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > To my understanding, they are busy dividing > themselvers into 2 units to produce kits and approved > sport aircraft. Anyone know any different? > > Kurt S. > > --- Dan Sherburn wrote: > > > > Len's message echoes something I've been hearing > > alot of > > lately...no response from Skystar. Does anyone have > > any > > updates? I'm trying to select a kit/company and > > they're one > > on my "short list". > > __________________________________ > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html > ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 01:26:52 PM PST US From: RiteAngle3@aol.com Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: SkyStar Status --> Kitfox-List message posted by: RiteAngle3@aol.com Gentlemen, Instead of relying on rumors, why not just call the company during normal working hours, ask questions then you will know. I just got some parts from SkyStar they have been doing some R&D with for me. I'm sure they will be very upfront. If you don't want to spend a dime, look at their website! Elbie RiteAngle ~The "Stand Alone AOA System" for Your Safety Outstanding Customer Service is our Motto If you like it let others know If not let me know! EM aviation, LLC Elbie Mendenhall www.RiteAngle.com ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 01:35:41 PM PST US From: Torgeir Mortensen Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: NSI/CAP prop rpm --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen Hi Kurt, The harmonic oscillation "may" be related to the "phase" between the crank and the prop. mounting. Try changing this by installing the prop. into "next" possible mounting position. Sometimes rare resonant problem occur in crank/propeller phase relation. Just a thought.. And-, have no experience with your setup.. Torgeir. kurt schrader wrote: > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > Ok, I finally found the list of ratios. This manual > is at least 4 years old though. There are 16 > different ratios available from NSI ranging from 1.622 > to 3.409:1. Ron, your 2.129 is listed and also 2.031 > and 1.939 for being close to 2:1. With all Rick's > power, he could even go for the 1.939 and do well too. > > My engine shakes a bit when I load it up with too much > prop. Much more testing to do, but cruise is not good > in the lower 3000 range unless you have the power back > too. Around 3900 is about best for my engine for > smoothness. I would like to run the engine a bit > slower and the prop faster too, if it could be smooth. > Mine does go into and out of harmonics in some > places. > > Interesting subject. > > Kurt S. > > --- "Ronald K. Stevens" wrote: > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ronald K. > > Stevens" > > > > Kurt & Rick, > > > > I've got a CAP 140 that's 2.12:1 ratio. It was > > manufactured in '97 I > > think. So, that ratio was offered in the past. > > > > Ron > > > > kurt schrader wrote: > > > > >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > > > > > > >Rick, > > > > > >That is what I thought. We have more to go on the > > >prop rpm. I forgot if Lance offers a 2:1 ratio in > > his > > >lineup. That would make it easier. > > __________________________________ > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html > ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 02:02:48 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Michel, Jabi 2200 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe Jimmie Blackwell wrote: > Let me know how I can help and if you want me to email the articles to you. This is extremely kind of you, Jimmie. Of course, if you have the time to scan the article, I'd love to have it in an email. But there is no hurry and at the time being, I am just trying to gather some general information. Firstly, I don't plan to change my engine before next winter. But I'd like to get ready so that I have solved all the issues before grounding the plane. Next, I am not sure I'll have a Jabiru. But at the present time, it sounds like a good alternative. I am in favour of simple things. Less is more, in my book. As such, I think the Jabiru is a good candidate. What concerns me at the moment is the extra involved in changing a 582 for a Jabiru, or any other engine, for the matter. So far, I understand that the Jabiru requires a good ventilation. Therefore the shape of the cowling is important. I have seen a Swedish Kitfox with an ugly mod on the cowling. I have seen a French Kitfox that looks much better. But they were both model 4. Mine is model 3. So, my first question is: Is the round cowling of the model 4 identical to the model 3 in size? You are talking about the Skyfox cowling. I am sorry, I don't know what it is. Does it have a different shape? Can I purchase it? Will it fit my model 3? Kurt, thank you for writing the essence of the article. Dave's performances are above my expectations, if any. I don't know enough about Kitfoxes and their engines to be able to compare them. As for my Vne, it is written 100 MPH in the User's Manual, which is, I guess, the same for all the model 3. Can I exceed that if I have a different engine? Is the Vne dictated by the structural strength of the aircraft or by the power of the engine? I think it is the former, isn't it? Can I expect more speed from my old Avid STOL undercambered long wings? I guess Dave has the KF 4-1200 with different wings. Thank you again, both. I know one day I'll have a new engine and I can thank this list for having made the right choice. Cheers, Michel ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 02:07:33 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Kitfox-List: Winter WAS Engine choice - Drag Producers. --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe Torgeir Mortensen wrote: > So, I'm ready to fly (anytime), but just now it's howling down (the > snow), got some 12 inches (or a little bit more) during last 24 h. Yes-, > it's true. And down south, Torgeir, we have had weeks of snow, then days of rain and if I want to fly my Kitfox right now I'll need ... floats! Add to that that the snow plough has done a very bad job at removing the snow, leaving big clumps here and there ... sometimes it's better to wait. It can only get better! :-) Cheers, Michel do not archive ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 02:20:40 PM PST US From: "Clem Nichols" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: NSI/CAP prop rpm --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" OK, Guys: I'm a little confused here. Are we talking about Cockpit Adjustable Prop ratios or Prop Speed Reduction Ratios? Is there such a thing as CAP ratio? ----- Original Message ----- From: "kurt schrader" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: NSI/CAP prop rpm > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > Ok, I finally found the list of ratios. This manual > is at least 4 years old though. There are 16 > different ratios available from NSI ranging from 1.622 > to 3.409:1. Ron, your 2.129 is listed and also 2.031 > and 1.939 for being close to 2:1. With all Rick's > power, he could even go for the 1.939 and do well too. > > My engine shakes a bit when I load it up with too much > prop. Much more testing to do, but cruise is not good > in the lower 3000 range unless you have the power back > too. Around 3900 is about best for my engine for > smoothness. I would like to run the engine a bit > slower and the prop faster too, if it could be smooth. > Mine does go into and out of harmonics in some > places. > > Interesting subject. > > Kurt S. > > --- "Ronald K. Stevens" wrote: > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ronald K. > > Stevens" > > > > Kurt & Rick, > > > > I've got a CAP 140 that's 2.12:1 ratio. It was > > manufactured in '97 I > > think. So, that ratio was offered in the past. > > > > Ron > > > > kurt schrader wrote: > > > > >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > > > > > > >Rick, > > > > > >That is what I thought. We have more to go on the > > >prop rpm. I forgot if Lance offers a 2:1 ratio in > > his > > >lineup. That would make it easier. > > __________________________________ > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html > > ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 02:51:43 PM PST US From: "dmorisse" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: NSI/CAP prop rpm --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dmorisse" Kurt, I think you'll find that most NSI owners have found that the smoothest cruise range is between 3700 and 4000 whether turbo'd or not. Mine is smoothest and most effiecient at 3900 and 22"mp 1450egt. This varies slightly with environmental conditions. Anything below 3500 and it is getting a bit low, especially with cruise pitch. Darrel NSI/CAP 2.34 gears ----- Original Message ----- From: "kurt schrader" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: NSI/CAP prop rpm > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > Ok, I finally found the list of ratios. This manual > is at least 4 years old though. There are 16 > different ratios available from NSI ranging from 1.622 > to 3.409:1. Ron, your 2.129 is listed and also 2.031 > and 1.939 for being close to 2:1. With all Rick's > power, he could even go for the 1.939 and do well too. > > My engine shakes a bit when I load it up with too much > prop. Much more testing to do, but cruise is not good > in the lower 3000 range unless you have the power back > too. Around 3900 is about best for my engine for > smoothness. I would like to run the engine a bit > slower and the prop faster too, if it could be smooth. > Mine does go into and out of harmonics in some > places. > > Interesting subject. > > Kurt S. > > --- "Ronald K. Stevens" wrote: > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ronald K. > > Stevens" > > > > Kurt & Rick, > > > > I've got a CAP 140 that's 2.12:1 ratio. It was > > manufactured in '97 I > > think. So, that ratio was offered in the past. > > > > Ron > > > > kurt schrader wrote: > > > > >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > > > > > > >Rick, > > > > > >That is what I thought. We have more to go on the > > >prop rpm. I forgot if Lance offers a 2:1 ratio in > > his > > >lineup. That would make it easier. > > __________________________________ > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html > > ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 02:55:26 PM PST US From: "dmorisse" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: SkyStar Status --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dmorisse" Thanks for posting this Torgeir. It clears a few things up. Now if they'd just get their backorders cleared up... Darrel > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen > > Hi Kurt, > > The origin source is here: > > > http://www.skystar.com/fromthepres.htm ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 03:10:10 PM PST US From: "dmorisse" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: NSI/CAP prop rpm --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dmorisse" > I'm a little confused here. Are we talking about Cockpit Adjustable Prop > ratios or Prop Speed Reduction Ratios? Is there such a thing as CAP ratio? same same. Generally it's referred to as psru ratios. Did someone use the term CAP ratio? Darrel ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 04:33:21 PM PST US From: Grant Fluent Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Classic IV - Instrument Panel Cover (Dash Cover) Installation --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent Thanks to everyone for their continuing responses to my problem with the dash cover. Lowell, you mentioned that oil tank would prevent the top cowling from being too low. That's one thing that I didn't do. I didn't install it when I fitted the cowlings - I followed the manual :( I will check that next to see if it fits or interferes. If I was to move the lower cowling up, I have only about 1/2" to go until it hits the bottom piece of the firewall - is it supposed to? I located it vertically by the dimensions in the manual. The dash cover will fit nicely with the windshield it I slide it down and forward until the bottom edge is flush with the bottom edge of the windshield. The screws would be where they're supposed to be except that the dash cover is no longer level with the fuselage. The front is about 1/2" lower. Has everyone else made theirs level or just positioned it where it fits well? Thanks, Grant Fluent Newcastle, NE Classic IV 912S --- kurt schrader wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > > It does sound like your cowl is too low, but just an > idea here. Would it be easier to modify the dash > cover than the cowl? Which one would be best in the > long run to change? Do the cowl if it wrong, but if > there is no other problem, just modify the cover, > IMHO. > > Kurt S. > > --- Grant Fluent wrote: > > > > Thanks Lowell, Kurt and Eric. > > > > From reading your responses, I think I've got > > something drastically wrong here. The bottom lip > on > > the dash cover is 1" above the bottom lip on the > > windscreen. Eric, you may be right, I may have the > > cowlings mounted too low. At most I could only > gain > > 1/2" though if I were to epoxy the holes shut and > > start over moving the lower cowling up. The > > windscreen seems very close to the x-brace tubing > in > > the front. By that I mean you can just get your > > fingers between the tubes and the windscreen. It > had > > to be positioned like that because the top cowling > > was > > such a tight fit against it. Any ideas or > > suggestions? > > > > Grant Fluent > > Newcastle, NE > > Classic IV 912S ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 05:28:19 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: SkyStar Status --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Elbie and Torgier, I was just trying to respond to a few people who had tried to call SS recently and were getting nowhere. Since SS had been unreachable, I just wanted to say that they are probably busy reorganizing. It seems that this opportunity will give them a chance to become a much bigger company again. Way back in the past they were working 2 shifts and putting out up to 40 planes a month, if I remember correctly. Would be nice to see them back on top again due to the sport flight category opening up. Do not archive Kurt S. --- RiteAngle3@aol.com wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: > RiteAngle3@aol.com > > Gentlemen, > Instead of relying on rumors, why not just call the > company during normal > working hours, ask questions then you will know. > > I just got some parts from SkyStar they have been > doing some R&D with for me. > I'm sure they will be very upfront. If you don't > want to spend a dime, look > at their website! > Elbie __________________________________ http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 05:51:16 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: NSI/CAP prop rpm --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Ha ha, OK, I guess I cut too much of the previous messages out... Nope, don't think anyone said CAP ratios... The discussion is on prop rpm and specifically for NSI CAP props, ie, the subject "NSI/CAP prop rpm". The ratios discussed are for the PRSU to achieve the prop rpm desired to get the Warp Drive blades up to more efficient tip speeds. So keep points are: Some people want more prop efficiency. NSI uses Warp Drive blades on their CAP props. Warp Drive says they are running the tip speed a bit too slowly, and so, less efficiently. Questions: What psru ratio would work better? What does NSI offer in psru ratios that is close to what is desirable to raise the NSI/CAP prop rpm? How's zat? :-) do not archive Kurt S. --- dmorisse wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dmorisse" > > > > I'm a little confused here. Are we talking about > Cockpit Adjustable Prop > > ratios or Prop Speed Reduction Ratios? Is there > such a thing as CAP > ratio? > > same same. Generally it's referred to as psru > ratios. Did someone use the > term CAP ratio? > Darrel __________________________________ http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 05:56:33 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: NSI/CAP prop rpm --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Thanks Darrel, That sounds right about where mine is smoothest too. Might have something to do with NSI's cam shafts I suppose. Kurt S. --- dmorisse wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dmorisse" > > > Kurt, I think you'll find that most NSI owners have > found that the smoothest > cruise range is between 3700 and 4000 whether > turbo'd or not. Mine is > smoothest and most effiecient at 3900 and 22"mp > 1450egt. This varies > slightly with environmental conditions. Anything > below 3500 and it is > getting a bit low, especially with cruise pitch. > Darrel > NSI/CAP > 2.34 gears __________________________________ http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 06:04:42 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: NSI/CAP prop rpm --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader You might be right about the phase relationships Torgier. Unfortunately there is a clutch involved, so the relationship is always changing every time it goes to low rpm or on restart. My engine was smooth as silk when I got it, but after just a few hours of running it unloaded, (no prop) during construction, it got rougher running. The prop is not perfect either. A bit out of track. Neither situation is bad at all, but it could be smoother. Kurt S. --- Torgeir Mortensen wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen > > > Hi Kurt, > > The harmonic oscillation "may" be related to the > "phase" between the > crank and the prop. mounting. Try changing this by > installing the prop. > into "next" possible mounting position. Sometimes > rare resonant problem > occur in crank/propeller phase relation. Just a > thought.. And, I have > no experience with your setup.. > > Torgeir. > > kurt schrader wrote: > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > > > > Ok, I finally found the list of ratios. This > manual > > is at least 4 years old though. There are 16 > > different ratios available from NSI ranging from > 1.622 > > to 3.409:1. Ron, your 2.129 is listed and also > 2.031 > > and 1.939 for being close to 2:1. With all Rick's > > power, he could even go for the 1.939 and do well > too. > > > > My engine shakes a bit when I load it up with too > much > > prop. Much more testing to do, but cruise is not > good > > in the lower 3000 range unless you have the power > back > > too. Around 3900 is about best for my engine for > > smoothness. I would like to run the engine a bit > > slower and the prop faster too, if it could be > smooth. > > Mine does go into and out of harmonics in some > > places. > > > > Interesting subject. > > > > Kurt S. __________________________________ http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 06:11:00 PM PST US From: "Rick" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: RE: NSI/CAP prop rpm --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" The prop and non-changing assembly can be balanced. Unlike a direct drive that's about all you can balance. Had it done some time ago but cant say I noticed any difference. Rick -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: NSI/CAP prop rpm --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader You might be right about the phase relationships Torgier. Unfortunately there is a clutch involved, so the relationship is always changing every time it goes to low rpm or on restart. My engine was smooth as silk when I got it, but after just a few hours of running it unloaded, (no prop) during construction, it got rougher running. The prop is not perfect either. A bit out of track. Neither situation is bad at all, but it could be smoother. Kurt S. --- Torgeir Mortensen wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen > > > Hi Kurt, > > The harmonic oscillation "may" be related to the > "phase" between the > crank and the prop. mounting. Try changing this by > installing the prop. > into "next" possible mounting position. Sometimes > rare resonant problem > occur in crank/propeller phase relation. Just a > thought.. And, I have > no experience with your setup.. > > Torgeir. > > kurt schrader wrote: > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > > > > Ok, I finally found the list of ratios. This > manual > > is at least 4 years old though. There are 16 > > different ratios available from NSI ranging from > 1.622 > > to 3.409:1. Ron, your 2.129 is listed and also > 2.031 > > and 1.939 for being close to 2:1. With all Rick's > > power, he could even go for the 1.939 and do well > too. > > > > My engine shakes a bit when I load it up with too > much > > prop. Much more testing to do, but cruise is not > good > > in the lower 3000 range unless you have the power > back > > too. Around 3900 is about best for my engine for > > smoothness. I would like to run the engine a bit > > slower and the prop faster too, if it could be > smooth. > > Mine does go into and out of harmonics in some > > places. > > > > Interesting subject. > > > > Kurt S. __________________________________ http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 06:11:50 PM PST US From: kerrjohna@comcast.net Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Classic IV - Instrument Panel Cover (Dash Cover) Installation --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net go with the slightly lower leading edge of the glareshield. no onw will notice. John Kerr > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent > > Thanks to everyone for their continuing responses to > my problem with the dash cover. > Lowell, you mentioned that oil tank would prevent > the top cowling from being too low. That's one thing > that I didn't do. I didn't install it when I fitted > the cowlings - I followed the manual :( I will check > that next to see if it fits or interferes. > If I was to move the lower cowling up, I have only > about 1/2" to go until it hits the bottom piece of the > firewall - is it supposed to? I located it vertically > by the dimensions in the manual. > The dash cover will fit nicely with the windshield > it I slide it down and forward until the bottom edge > is flush with the bottom edge of the windshield. The > screws would be where they're supposed to be except > that the dash cover is no longer level with the > fuselage. The front is about 1/2" lower. Has everyone > else made theirs level or just positioned it where it > fits well? > Thanks, > Grant Fluent > Newcastle, NE > Classic IV 912S > > > --- kurt schrader wrote: > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > > > > > It does sound like your cowl is too low, but just an > > idea here. Would it be easier to modify the dash > > cover than the cowl? Which one would be best in the > > long run to change? Do the cowl if it wrong, but if > > there is no other problem, just modify the cover, > > IMHO. > > > > Kurt S. > > > > --- Grant Fluent wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Lowell, Kurt and Eric. > > > > > > From reading your responses, I think I've got > > > something drastically wrong here. The bottom lip > > on > > > the dash cover is 1" above the bottom lip on the > > > windscreen. Eric, you may be right, I may have the > > > cowlings mounted too low. At most I could only > > gain > > > 1/2" though if I were to epoxy the holes shut and > > > start over moving the lower cowling up. The > > > windscreen seems very close to the x-brace tubing > > in > > > the front. By that I mean you can just get your > > > fingers between the tubes and the windscreen. It > > had > > > to be positioned like that because the top cowling > > > was > > > such a tight fit against it. Any ideas or > > > suggestions? > > > > > > Grant Fluent > > > Newcastle, NE > > > Classic IV 912S > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 06:49:11 PM PST US From: Arthur Nation Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KITFOX FOR SALE --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Arthur Nation On Saturday 31 January 2004 12:14, Steve & Bonnie Lorenz wrote: To the List: I had the opportunity to visit Steve and Bonnie Lorenz today to view the S5 Kitfox they have for sale. While I am not in the market, I want to express my great satisfaction regarding the professional construction of this aircraft. I was able to look at the uncowled engine installation from top to bottom. The cowling over the wiring behind the panel was also removed giving a great view of all instruments and radios. It also impressed me as to the ease of access to this area. I am not an A& P mechanic, nor a professional kit builder, but this is without a doubt a fine looking aircraft. If one is at all thinking of a 'pre-built' Kitfox, I suggest that it would be well worth the effort to view it. Arthur Nation Tacoma, WA partial S7 kit > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve & Bonnie Lorenz" > > > List members, > > If you know of anyone interested in a completed Kitfox V (with NSI firewall > forward EA-81 Suburu and CAP 140 prop), I can be contacted off line at > 360-497-2245 (Washington state) or email at randlekids@lewiscounty.com. > Price recently reduced. > > Steve Lorenz > > ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 07:23:05 PM PST US From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: new member saying Hi!! and lite paint --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" The issue that always comes up with latex is WEIGHT. I have no direct experience, but it is easy for me to believe that it would be significantly heavier that the Polyspray system. Randy . -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of KITFOXPILOT@att.net Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: new member saying Hi!! and lite paint --> Kitfox-List message posted by: KITFOXPILOT@att.net Welcome, never used latex on a fabric plane before, wish you luck! I would be interested in some photos of before and after of the repair you are going to make to the spar attach points on your plane. I have a model IV 1200 with a 912S. Ray > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jim Chuk" > > Hi all, Jim Chuk here. I live in COLD northern MN and have been flying a Himax > for the last 3 years or so. I'm new to this group, I just bought a Kitfox 3 a > week ago that is in need of a bit of work. Some damage was done to one wing in > a trailering incident and the top of the plane where the wings attach has been > cut off with a new one from skystar ready to be welded in. A friend of mine who > has built a few planes and worked on others didn't think it was much of a > problem to fix so after he told me he would help, I bought it. The plane needs > to be covered of course and as I want to keep it as light as possible, I've been > thinking about useing latex paint. I'm on the Ison aircraft (makers of the > Minimax and Himax aircraft) builders website and a number of them have used > latex with (they said) good results. I guess I'm just throwing the thought > out there to see what youall think. I know it would be far less expensive to > use but of course one has to be concerned with t! > he results also. Thanks, Jim > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 08:09:10 PM PST US From: "Jeff Hays" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: "Captive" PAX - WAS: Stick movement --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Hays" Geez! Lighten up guys. I was kidding when I said I was worried about the stick breaking off in my hand. But I will say, that Skystar does Mig rather than Tig, or Acetylene because it is fast. It is also the worst possible way to weld 4130, especially if the welds aren't stress relieved. This is likely why the rudder pedals were breaking, because they weren't stress relieved, and the intense localized heat caused the assembly to become brittle. Don't believe me, search "mig welding 4130 steel" on google. Be honest also, while the Kitfox is a nice plane, I've built one, and they are not neccesarily the best kit out there. If you look at the quality of material's from Van's or Ran's Skystar's kind of shoddy. I mean for a kit - I fabricated, and refabricated a lot of stuff that should have been done to begin with. Not to mention all the rework I did on my fast build wings, etc, etc. I think most people on the list own, fly, or are building. I don't think many own stock in Skystar, so let's be honest about how good these kits really are - They're not that great. If you put the effort into it, you can have a first rate airplane, but it'll take a lot of work to do it. Jeff. -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: "Captive" PAX - WAS: Stick movement --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clifford Begnaud" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: "Captive" PAX - WAS: Stick movement > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" > > Mike, > Also, considering the number of broken welds experienced by Kitfox owners > over the years, I would suggest that the probability of a broken stick is > not all that remote. Just my 2 cents. > My passenger side stick will stay right where it is. > Best Regards, > Cliff > Gotta chime in here for the sake of clarity. I know of one builder that made a totally wrong engine choice because of a statement like this with no clarification. Yes, there have been failures at the rudder pedal weldment. I personally am not aware of any other weld failure with the possible exception of the tube gear collapsing under excessive side loads and it is debatable as to the welds role in the failure. If there have been other weld failure modes that I am not aware of, please correct me. I have gone through every one of the NTSB accident reports- tons of pilot error, some fuel problems, but never one where the stick comes off in the pilot's hand. Please no one should get the impression that the Kitfox is a poorly welded or constructed kit. We are free to have opinions and to express them and to add whatever redundency we wish in our airplanes, but I know if at least two lurkers that are considering a Kitfox as a project or purchase, and staements like this could be a deal killer. Respectfully, Lowell > > >(I am 56) my passenger should get a fair chance to crash ... not > vertically. > > > > >I always worry that the Mig welded control column might be > > >welded by the same welder as the rudder pedals, so I want > > >the second stick in case the first breaks off ... :) > > > > You guys have your probabilities all mixed up. You are a lot more > > likely to have the passenger's knees interfering with your operation > > of the controls than to become incapacitated or have the stick break > > off in your hand. > > > > Mike G. > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 09:37:33 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: RE: NSI/CAP prop rpm --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Thanks Rick, This is one of those, "I'll get to it later" things. I think the real problem might be with carboration. It has been all over the place since I got it. Lean and rich, stumbling - everything. EGT's changing from one flight to the next. Sometimes full rich is peak and sometimes it is rich. I pulled the carb screen and it looks clean. I made the idle circuit richer and that cleared it up a lot. Lance says that the problem is really the plugs from running the engine unloaded - carbon. So I am going to have to replace the plugs and see if that helps. I have had them out twice and they look fine. But since it runs well enough, I will have to attend to some other things first. It was just so nice when it ran smoothly... Five years from now I probably won't be so picky. I just want it right the first time. Kurt S. --- Rick wrote: > > The prop and non-changing assembly can be balanced. > Unlike a direct drive > that's about all you can balance. Had it done some > time ago but cant say I > noticed any difference. > > Rick > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com >> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: NSI/CAP prop rpm > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > > You might be right about the phase relationships > Torgier. Unfortunately there is a clutch involved, > so > the relationship is always changing every time it > goes > to low rpm or on restart. > > My engine was smooth as silk when I got it, but > after > just a few hours of running it unloaded, (no prop) > during construction, it got rougher running. The > prop > is not perfect either. A bit out of track. Neither > situation is bad at all, but it could be smoother. > > Kurt S. __________________________________ http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 10:25:28 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Michel, Jabi 2200 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Michel, In the article, Dave says he has the "Skyfox" cowl. It looks like it was made by Jabiru, if Skyfox is the name they use for it with their engine. (I am sorry, but it is not quite as pretty as the SS cowl IMHO.) It is the smooth cowl, not the round, and the small inlets apparently match the Jabiru ductwork for cooling. It does look lower drag - smaller frontal area to let that prop do its work. Your VNE is based on the plane and probably for strength/flutter reasons. You shouldn't go faster no matter what engine you have. So that would mean that you have too much cruise power for your plane, if set up Dave's way. Oh, too much power. You would have all our sympathy. :-) But you might be right that the III's wing is more draggy at 100 mph and you might not get beyond it with Dave's setup anyway. If you still were too fast, a prop leaning a little more toward climb would give you more performance below VNE, but less gas milage. I think you should hit max rpm's right when you get to VNE, with the right prop. Then throttle back to keep below both limits. That means that neither limit stops you before the other and you get the most performance below both limits. But with your gas prices, maybe the cruise prop isn't a bad idea either. You just have to stay below VNE yourself. Here are some web sites for you so that you can get dimensions and other info. They do include the firewall forward kits too. >http://www.usjabiru.com/< >http://www.usjabiru.com/jabiru_2200a.htm< So as soon as your rich uncle dies and leaves you a fortune, you'll be ready. Kurt S. --- Michel Verheughe wrote: > Kurt, thank you for writing the essence of the > article. Dave's performances are > above my expectations, if any. I don't know enough > about Kitfoxes and their > engines to be able to compare them. As for my Vne, > it is written 100 MPH in the > User's Manual, which is, I guess, the same for all > the model 3. Can I exceed > that if I have a different engine? Is the Vne > dictated by the structural > strength of the aircraft or by the power of the > engine? I think it is the > former, isn't it? Can I expect more speed from my > old Avid STOL undercambered > long wings? I guess Dave has the KF 4-1200 with > different wings. > > Thank you again, both. I know one day I'll have a > new engine and I can thank > this list for having made the right choice. > > Cheers, > Michel __________________________________ http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html