Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:12 AM - Re: Fitting Wings Model IV Speedster (kurt schrader)
2. 02:48 AM - Re: Kitfox Dream (kurt schrader)
3. 02:57 AM - Re: Model 3 with VW peformance (Lyle Persels)
4. 03:53 AM - Re: (off-topic)Virtual aviation (michel)
5. 03:56 AM - Re: Re: Back on the list (David Dawe)
6. 05:51 AM - Re: Re: Back on the list (Marc Arseneault)
7. 08:21 AM - Re: Model 3 with VW peformance (Bill Pleso)
8. 08:54 AM - Re: Fitting Wings Model IV Speedster (Jimmie Blackwell)
9. 09:11 AM - Re: 912S surging/rough (Dave & Wendy Grosvenor)
10. 09:16 AM - Re: Fitting Wings Model IV Speedster (Barbara Jones)
11. 09:35 AM - Re: Model 3 with VW peformance (Steve M)
12. 09:47 AM - Re: Model 3 with VW peformance (Bruce Harrington)
13. 11:29 AM - Re: Fitting Wings Model IV Speedster (kurt schrader)
14. 12:06 PM - Re: Model 3 with VW peformance (John Larsen)
15. 12:06 PM - Re: Model 3 with VW peformance (John Larsen)
16. 12:47 PM - Re: Model 3 with VW peformance (Ed Veneck)
17. 01:28 PM - Re: Warpdrive props (Jeff Thomas)
18. 01:48 PM - Re: Model 3 with VW peformance (Torgeir Mortensen)
19. 02:31 PM - Fw: Tri-Gear Nose Weights? (Dcecil3@aol.com)
20. 02:51 PM - Re: Model 3 with VW peformance (Bob Unternaehrer)
21. 03:02 PM - Re: Model 3 with VW peformance (Allan Aaron)
22. 03:06 PM - Re: Model 3 with VW peformance (Allan Aaron)
23. 03:37 PM - Re: Re: Warpdrive props (Torgeir Mortensen)
24. 04:49 PM - Re: EGT Cold Joint Calibration point (Westberg types). (Torgeir Mortensen)
25. 06:20 PM - Re: Re: Back on the list (Ted Palamarek)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fitting Wings Model IV Speedster |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi again Jimmie,
I just got back from work and finally have a little
time to write. I'll try to explain this thru my 4am
mind fog so you can understand it.
I origionally leveled my plane on my driveway too.
You have to have a no wind day to do it. Even a
little wind will mess things up. Later, all my
leveling was inside a friends hangar where I could
leave it set up and work without rushing. But my wing
rigging was done on the driveway and this set the
"level for life" points. The plane flys very well
too, so driveway leveling worked.
I leveled the plane on the main gear, and after
shoring as best I could, used tire pressure for fine
adjusting. I picked up an old desk from GoodWill and
put rollers under it building up to the height I
needed for the tailwheel. Just a little shoring there
to get it right down to +/- 1/8th inch material for
accuracy.
Now my way is not solid and I had to constantly check
with a level anytime I made a change. The gear/tires
can flex. If you don't have the engine mounted, the
plane is light enough to mount on a hard surface and
that would be better IMHO. My engine was on and
provided the weight to keep it stable.
The book suggests places to set your level. I
compared the books places with the door sill, overhead
structure, floor structure, etc and picked places I
could use after completion that lined up with the book
points. I used a 30" level for accuracy. Biggest
that would fit the plane.
Once you have the materials and a dry run done, you
can get the plane leveled again accurately and pretty
quickly. It is worth doing this right because you
need to level it again for setting the horizontal
stab, control rigging, W&B and other uses. It is nice
when you can repeatidly come back to the same level
condition and keep things square.
After leveling, I dropped a plumbob at the tail to
ensure the verticle tail was verticle. No wind to
blow the plumbob! Then check alignment of the stab
leading edge from the front of the airplane by sight.
(You'll need to check this again later when you cover
the tail. Iron the fabric for tail straightness.)
I placed both wings on the rear spar attachments to
keep the weight balanced on both sides. The upper
rear spar attachment holes were drilled first. Only
the upper holes...
I also used the center rudder mount bolt to measure
from to get wing sweep per the book. But if the tail
is crooked, the sweep will be a little off too. The
tail is your known straight place to measure sweep
from. Make sure it is known to be straight.
I used the verticle stab to set the horizontal stab
and braces to keep them straight too. Later you
should check the horizontal stab against the wings as
a cross check. In my case, the front wing spar mount/
carry thru tube was my leveling point and I could
sight the horizontal stab across it (before I
installed the windscreen, turtledeck, etc).
For me, my level points were that front spar carry
thru tube, top or bottom, the upper door sill, pilot's
side, inside, and the verticle stab. (The fuselage
side stringers also form a rough level belt line for
the plane, though mine are not perfectly accurate.)
My blind hole finder was necessary because you can't
accurately drill those front wing spar to fuselage
mount holes without it. I used 2 pices of scrap
aluminum strapping about 16-18" long. One is drilled
at one end to exactly fit your front wing spar pins.
This will be duck tapped to the top of the front spar
carry thru tube. Tape the inboard 6 inches of the
strap only so the hole end can flex up. Use a wing
mount pin to keep it aligned at the hole end.
The other strap will be riveted at 90 degrees to this
strap at the point it runs over the butt rib mounting
structure. You should have an offset "T" when done.
Tape the aft end of this strap firmly down on top of
the butt rib structure. One rivet is good enough to
hold the 2 straps together and lets you fold the tool
when not using it. With both straps firmly taped down
at the far ends, the hole should stay exactly aligned
over the carry thru tube hole. Now you can remove the
wing pin and pick up the tool end over the wing pin
hole. Carefully swing the wing on the aft spar bolt
until the wing is properly aligned. Then do all of
your wing aligning on that wing very accurately.
Now the hole can then be drilled thru the hole finder
exactly thru the front spar to the carry thru tube
hole. Make sure the hole finder is not moved while
you do all this wing alignment. Don't be afraid to
use lots of tape to hold it in place. I still started
with smaller drills and enlarged the spar top hole to
ensure it was accurate. Again drill only the top spar
hole.
If you don't get that front hole right where you want
it, your wing aligning is for not. You want a tight
hole that just fits the pin and keeps the wing
aligned.
Now for the lower spar holes. I found that when you
have everything set properly on the wing and want to
drill thru to the lower spar holes from the top, you
need a drill with short flutes so you dont expand the
upper spar holes. The drill shank will keep the upper
holes aligned just like a bolt or pin, while drilling
thru to the lower holes, but you need a solid shank on
the upper surface, not drill flutes. It is worth it
to have this short flutted drill just to get those
lower holes right without messing up the upper holes.
You don't want slack or sloppy wing mounts.
Once both upper holes are drilled, recheck your levels
and all your wing alignments. I did not drill the
lower holes until I was sure the wings were aligned
and the lift struts were exactly in place where I
wanted them. You don't want the rear bolts or front
pins to bind up on you, or unnecessary spar stress
later due to mis-aligned lower holes.
Time to quit for now. I am talked out. Hope this
helped.
What else can I tell you? I'll answer later.
Kurt S.
__________________________________
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
You are way ahead of me Gary,
So far I have determined that the plane goes left when
I push the stick left and right when I push the stick
right. Up when I pull and down when I push. It trims
out and doesn't go anywhere when hands off. The
engine has run the entire time I was airborne every
time. :-)
No flutter so far. Did the first 2 clean stalls on
the last flight. 39-40 kts indicated, but to what
accuracy is my airspeed? TBD later.
Still working on lowering the oil temperature from 220
to maybe 200 on climb. It is well within limits, but
I tested at 40-60 degrees F. It needs more airflow to
handle hot wx. On the last flight, I found the oil
temp comes down quickly on descent. I need to fly
around at cruise and see what it stabilizes at. So
far I have only worked it hard and not let it see
cruise conditions. Maybe that oil temp problem is
smaller than I think.
And last, I need to find out how much oil it will hold
and not blow it out. That will be my real "full"
mark. Once I have those things done, I can explore
the rest of the flight spectrum.
I did deploy 50% flaps very briefly on the last flight
just for effect. It was a long way down from 4,000'.
They work! Did a good slip to land coming down too.
4,000' (3300 agl) - my highest altitude so far. Went
up there for the stalls. I should have stayed for
another 10 minutes to see what the temps stabilized
at. Maybe next flight will tell, if my little air
deflector works for the oil cooler and I don't upchuck
oil out the breather.
The weather is to be good all week, except rain
Friday. I am off work Friday... Grump... :-)
Do not archive,
Kurt S.
--- Gary Algate <algate@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Kurt
>
> Are you using flaps when landing as I find these
> normally slow me up pretty
> dramatically.
__________________________________
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model 3 with VW peformance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lyle Persels <lpers@mchsi.com>
I flew off the 40 hours on a friend's KF IV Speedster with a VW engine,
direct drive. Though the engine ran flawlessly it definitely didn't
perform as well as my KF IV long wing with a 912. Friend was so
disappointed that he changed engine to a 90 HP Continental. It won't fly
until later this spring. It will be interesting to see how that goes. I
don't know the comparitive weights, but the cruise speed and climb rates
in his Speedster were a little less than my long wing.
Lyle Persels
Paul Seehafer wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
>
>Hi Guys:
>
>Just wondering if anyone out in the wonderful world of Kitfoxes can tell me
>how a model 3 might perform with a VW on it? I have a friend that is
>considering buying a VW powered 3 project that he ultimately wants to put on
>floats (amphibs maybe?). I am somewhat leary of that arrangement for fear
>of not only little or no useful load, but also for having enough power to
>get it all off the water. But I really have no exposure to the vw
>powerplant in a Kitfox.
>
>Anyone have any knowledge or experience with VW powered Kitfoxes? Expected
>empty weights? Climb rate? Cruise? Etc, etc,...
>
>Paul Seehafer
>Wisconsin
>
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | (off-topic)Virtual aviation |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel <michel@online.no>
>===== Original Message From "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
>Tell us more about this computer program.
It's called X-Plane, Paul and Fred. See: http://x-plane.com
It is made by only one person, although with many helpers, including your
servant. It doesn't have the eye-candies from MS Flight Simulator but it is a
true "virtual wind tunnel" where you can build any wild ideas, hence the "X"
(experimental) in "X-Plane."
If you read a bit on the web page, you'll see that it goes in depth. You can
download a demo version that flies over SoCal for about 6 minutes, then you
loose the joystick controls.
In a nutshell: in MS FS, you input the Vso and the plane will stall at that
speed. In X-Plane, you make wings, fuse, horizontal and vertical stabs,
airfoil for each, and ... if it stalls at Vso, you're lucky or very good. It
is a true "blade element theory" model.
Cheers,
Michel
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Back on the list |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Dawe" <davedawe@3web.net>
Marc 70% sounds high???
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Arseneault" <northernultralights@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Back on the list
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Marc Arseneault"
<northernultralights@hotmail.com>
>
>
> <EM>Thanks Kurt! Canada is a very nice place to fly. 70% of our country is
accessible only by air leaving us with some really nice country to explore
and excellent fishing and hunting. Once I am licensed, I will send you some
pictures of our country and of course some of fishing. As for the best
stories from the North, Shane Sather who lives in Nunavut that owns a Lite
Squared with a 912S probably has really good stories to tell us. The last
time I talked to Shane, it was -45 C in Nunavut when we were at -15 Cin
Sudbury. Our winters are cold but nothing compared to theirs. One of my
dreams is tovisit Alaska!</EM>
>
>
> <EM>Best Regards,
>
> Marc Arseneault
> Ontario Canada
>
>
> </EM>----Original Message Follows---- From: kurt schrader
<SMOKEY_BEAR_40220@YAHOO.COM>Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com To:
kitfox-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Back on the list
by: kurt schrader <SMOKEY_BEAR_40220@YAHOO.COM>Welcome back Marc, Seems that
Canada is a good place for KitFoxes. The two just seem to go together. Good
planes for places of adventure and Canada has a lot to explore. Maybe we can
get you to compete with Torgier and Michel, both of Norway, and our Alaska
buddies, for the best stories from the North. :-) Inspire the builders and
tinkerers? Kurt S. --- Marc Arseneault
<NORTHERNULTRALIGHTS@HOTMAIL.COM>wrote: Hello Everyone, After a few
months of being off the list, I have re-joined.
__________________________________ http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Back on the list |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Marc Arseneault" <northernultralights@hotmail.com>
I was as surprised when I read the article just a couple of weeks ago.
<EM>Best Regards,
Marc Arseneault
Ontario Canada
</EM>----Original Message Follows---- From: "David Dawe" <DAVEDAWE@3WEB.NET>Reply-To:
kitfox-list@matronics.com To: <KITFOX-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List:
Re: Back on the list Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:26:21 -0330 -- Kitfox-List
message posted by: "David Dawe" <DAVEDAWE@3WEB.NET>Marc 70% sounds high???
----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc Arseneault" <NORTHERNULTRALIGHTS@HOTMAIL.COM>To:
<KITFOX-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Back
on the list -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Marc Arseneault" <NORTHERNULTRALIGHTS@HOTMAIL.COM>
<EM>Thanks Kurt! Canada is a very nice place to fly. 70%
of our country is accessible only by air leaving us with some really nice country
to explore and excellent fishing and hunting. Once I am licensed, I will
send you some pictures of our country and of course some of fishing. As for
the best
stories from the North, Shane Sather who lives in Nunavut that owns a Lite Squared
with a 912S probably has really good stories to tell us. The last time I
talked to Shane, it was -45 C in Nunavut when we were at -15 Cin Sudbury. Our
winters are cold but nothing compared to theirs. One of my dreams is tovisit Alaska!</EM>
<EM>Best Regards, Marc Arseneault Ontario Canada </EM>----Original
Message Follows---- From: kurt schrader <SMOKEY_BEAR_40220@YAHOO.COM>Reply-To:
kitfox-list@matronics.com To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Subject: Re:
Kitfox-List: Re: Back on the list Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 01:53:51 -0800 (PST)
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <SMOKEY_BEAR_40220@YAHOO.COM>Welcome
back Marc, Seems that Canada is a good place for KitFoxes. The two just
seem to go together. Good planes for places of adventure and Canada has a lot
to explore. Maybe we can get you to compete with Torgier and Michel, both of
Norway, and our
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model 3 with VW peformance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bill Pleso" <bill77@cox.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model 3 with VW peformance
Virtually all of the KR's are running VW (or corvair) engines with
cruise speed of 140 and UP and very impressive climb rates. It's odd that
the VW can perform so well in one type of plane yet fall on it's face in
another type (I know, it's apples and oranges). The Classic IV I purchase
was 10 years old and still unassembled. It came with a Mosler VW
conversion. Part of my brain says to use some other engine that has a
proven track record in a Kitfox, and another part considers this a
challenge. My wife says the best way to get me to do something is to say
"It can't be done". I've decided to pick up the gauntlet and see if I can
make the combo work. It sounds like there's only a couple of people out
there running VWs in their Kitfox. If there are others, it would be helpful
to hear what kind of problems they've had and how they addressed them.
Bill
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fitting Wings Model IV Speedster |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell" <jablackwell@ev1.net>
Kurt
Great information and I really appreciate the time you have taken to
enlighten me. I am still confused about what a blind hole finder is. I'll
do some research on the web though. I am a bit dumb about some of the terms
as I am a first time builder and have just never used a lot of the tools
that are necessary to build the Kitfox.
Thanks so much Kurt
Jimmie
----- Original Message -----
From: "kurt schrader" <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fitting Wings Model IV Speedster
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> Hi again Jimmie,
>
> I just got back from work and finally have a little
> time to write. I'll try to explain this thru my 4am
> mind fog so you can understand it.
>
> I origionally leveled my plane on my driveway too.
> You have to have a no wind day to do it. Even a
> little wind will mess things up. Later, all my
> leveling was inside a friends hangar where I could
> leave it set up and work without rushing. But my wing
> rigging was done on the driveway and this set the
> "level for life" points. The plane flys very well
> too, so driveway leveling worked.
>
> I leveled the plane on the main gear, and after
> shoring as best I could, used tire pressure for fine
> adjusting. I picked up an old desk from GoodWill and
> put rollers under it building up to the height I
> needed for the tailwheel. Just a little shoring there
> to get it right down to +/- 1/8th inch material for
> accuracy.
>
> Now my way is not solid and I had to constantly check
> with a level anytime I made a change. The gear/tires
> can flex. If you don't have the engine mounted, the
> plane is light enough to mount on a hard surface and
> that would be better IMHO. My engine was on and
> provided the weight to keep it stable.
>
> The book suggests places to set your level. I
> compared the books places with the door sill, overhead
> structure, floor structure, etc and picked places I
> could use after completion that lined up with the book
> points. I used a 30" level for accuracy. Biggest
> that would fit the plane.
>
> Once you have the materials and a dry run done, you
> can get the plane leveled again accurately and pretty
> quickly. It is worth doing this right because you
> need to level it again for setting the horizontal
> stab, control rigging, W&B and other uses. It is nice
> when you can repeatidly come back to the same level
> condition and keep things square.
>
> After leveling, I dropped a plumbob at the tail to
> ensure the verticle tail was verticle. No wind to
> blow the plumbob! Then check alignment of the stab
> leading edge from the front of the airplane by sight.
> (You'll need to check this again later when you cover
> the tail. Iron the fabric for tail straightness.)
>
> I placed both wings on the rear spar attachments to
> keep the weight balanced on both sides. The upper
> rear spar attachment holes were drilled first. Only
> the upper holes...
>
> I also used the center rudder mount bolt to measure
> from to get wing sweep per the book. But if the tail
> is crooked, the sweep will be a little off too. The
> tail is your known straight place to measure sweep
> from. Make sure it is known to be straight.
>
> I used the verticle stab to set the horizontal stab
> and braces to keep them straight too. Later you
> should check the horizontal stab against the wings as
> a cross check. In my case, the front wing spar mount/
> carry thru tube was my leveling point and I could
> sight the horizontal stab across it (before I
> installed the windscreen, turtledeck, etc).
>
> For me, my level points were that front spar carry
> thru tube, top or bottom, the upper door sill, pilot's
> side, inside, and the verticle stab. (The fuselage
> side stringers also form a rough level belt line for
> the plane, though mine are not perfectly accurate.)
>
> My blind hole finder was necessary because you can't
> accurately drill those front wing spar to fuselage
> mount holes without it. I used 2 pices of scrap
> aluminum strapping about 16-18" long. One is drilled
> at one end to exactly fit your front wing spar pins.
> This will be duck tapped to the top of the front spar
> carry thru tube. Tape the inboard 6 inches of the
> strap only so the hole end can flex up. Use a wing
> mount pin to keep it aligned at the hole end.
>
> The other strap will be riveted at 90 degrees to this
> strap at the point it runs over the butt rib mounting
> structure. You should have an offset "T" when done.
> Tape the aft end of this strap firmly down on top of
> the butt rib structure. One rivet is good enough to
> hold the 2 straps together and lets you fold the tool
> when not using it. With both straps firmly taped down
> at the far ends, the hole should stay exactly aligned
> over the carry thru tube hole. Now you can remove the
> wing pin and pick up the tool end over the wing pin
> hole. Carefully swing the wing on the aft spar bolt
> until the wing is properly aligned. Then do all of
> your wing aligning on that wing very accurately.
>
> Now the hole can then be drilled thru the hole finder
> exactly thru the front spar to the carry thru tube
> hole. Make sure the hole finder is not moved while
> you do all this wing alignment. Don't be afraid to
> use lots of tape to hold it in place. I still started
> with smaller drills and enlarged the spar top hole to
> ensure it was accurate. Again drill only the top spar
> hole.
>
> If you don't get that front hole right where you want
> it, your wing aligning is for not. You want a tight
> hole that just fits the pin and keeps the wing
> aligned.
>
> Now for the lower spar holes. I found that when you
> have everything set properly on the wing and want to
> drill thru to the lower spar holes from the top, you
> need a drill with short flutes so you dont expand the
> upper spar holes. The drill shank will keep the upper
> holes aligned just like a bolt or pin, while drilling
> thru to the lower holes, but you need a solid shank on
> the upper surface, not drill flutes. It is worth it
> to have this short flutted drill just to get those
> lower holes right without messing up the upper holes.
> You don't want slack or sloppy wing mounts.
>
> Once both upper holes are drilled, recheck your levels
> and all your wing alignments. I did not drill the
> lower holes until I was sure the wings were aligned
> and the lift struts were exactly in place where I
> wanted them. You don't want the rear bolts or front
> pins to bind up on you, or unnecessary spar stress
> later due to mis-aligned lower holes.
>
> Time to quit for now. I am talked out. Hope this
> helped.
>
> What else can I tell you? I'll answer later.
>
> Kurt S.
>
> __________________________________
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912S surging/rough |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave & Wendy Grosvenor" <dwg@iafrica.com>
John, that's it. I know that these tubes cannot be extended, John King and
others have said this a dozen times. The overflow tube must be about a 6mm
OD, so I slipped it into a tube with a 9mm ID that I tied to the engine
mount and routed out the bottom of the cowl. I assumed that the gap between
the two tubes would be large enough not to cause any suction effect on the
overflow tube. Looks like I was wrong. This morning, just to be sure, I
replaced my 9mm ID tubes with 25mm ID tubes! Bingo - no more surging.
You never stop learning.
Thanks all for the suggestions.
Cheers
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Banes" <johnbanes@adelphia.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 912S surging/rough
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Banes" <johnbanes@adelphia.net>
Dave,
A friend who has a Rans with a 912S mentioned that his surged and sounded
rough in a very similar manor. He had install an extension to each carb's
overflow line and extended these lines through the bottom of the cowling.
Once he removed these extensions the engine ran "perfectly".
John
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fitting Wings Model IV Speedster |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Barbara Jones <fire_n_ice@direcway.com>
Jimmie and Kurt,
Would calling it a "Strap Duplicator" help describe it. Kurt, where were
you when I was rigging my wings. That is a really really good idea, and so
simple.
Tom Jones
> Kurt
> Great information and I really appreciate the time you have taken to
> enlighten me. I am still confused about what a blind hole finder is.
I'll
> do some research on the web though. I am a bit dumb about some of the
terms
> as I am a first time builder and have just never used a lot of the tools
> that are necessary to build the Kitfox.
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model 3 with VW peformance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve M" <ondeck355@hotmail.com>
The KR's are small, very slippery little airframes with mostly high-speed
handling characteristics. And the Kitfoxes, frankly, aren't.
Most people using VWs in larger, draggy airframes have found greater
takeoff, climb, and cruise rates when they use a reduction drive. One of the
problems with the aircooled VW bug engine, is that in stock form (i.e. still
in the car) it develops its rated horsepower around 4000-4400 RPM. Even a
direct-drive prop can't turn that fast (unless it's REALLY teensy, I've
never seen such), and so the direct-drive engine must run at a reduced
speed, maybe 3500 tops, and so a reduced power.
Several companies make reduction drives, either geared or belt-driven. These
allow the engine to turn up to its rated power, and also let it swing a much
larger prop more slowly, which is more efficient than a small, fast-turning
prop. (Did you know that the B-29 Superfortress of WWII had geared engines,
and turned their propellers at 900 RPM during cruise? Course, having 3,000
cubic inches in each engine helped too).
I'd be curious what displacement these various VW engines in Kitfoxes had,
and what modifications. Many companies offer large-displacement pistons and
cylinders for VW conversions, both for automotive and aircraft use. The most
common aircooled VW car engines have 1500 or 1600 cc in stock form and put
out 55 to 65 HP, but conversions often go up to 1800 or 2200 cc, and
possibly more. This imposes additional stress on other engine parts, often
necessitating a custom-made crankshaft, crankcase, and other substitutions.
Custom cylinder heads are also often used in the big-bore engines. Frankly,
by the time you get a big-bore VW engine in the air, there aren't many parts
left that were made by VW.
If I were putting a VW engine in a Kitfox, I'd first investigate the
conversions made by Great Planes, Revmaster, and other companies (See the
ads in Sport Aviation, Trade-a-Plane, etc.), and simultaneously look into
reduction drives. Some of those big-bore engines are advertised to put out
as much as 80 or 100 HP. I wonder what propellers they use, and what the
prop efficiency is (Faster-turning props generally have lower efficiency).
I'd definitely go with a big-bore conversion and a reduction drive. Without
either, performance would probably be mediocre. But with them, a Kitfox with
a four-stroke engine putting out 80 to 100 HP (if those engines really do
that) and swinging an efficient prop, would be a pretty hot performer.
Caveat emptor.
Steve Maher
Kitfox Model 2, Geo Metro engine, 55 HP with PSRU
San Diego, CA
Click, drag and drop. My MSN is the simple way to design your homepage.
http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model 3 with VW peformance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
One thing missing in this discussion is the weight of a VW with reduction drive,
especially in a Model III. The gross weight of the III is something like 950#,
and the Vdub with drive is above or around 200#.
bh
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fitting Wings Model IV Speedster |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi Jimmie,
I am making up the term "blind hole finder" since it
is a homemade tool. In my SS builders' manual, on
Chapter VI, page 52, paragraph 48, they describe how
to find the front spar attachment lug hole in the
front carry thru tube. Their method is a bit rough.
The "Alternative Pin Placement Method" is pictured on
this page too. It is simply a wood strap taped to the
spar carry thru with the end over the hole. My tool
is like that, only it is much more accurate in that it
is held in place by 2 straps at 90 degrees and aligns
a hole right over the lug hole, not the strap end.
Their method has you just draw a line at the end of
the strap. My method puts an exact hole over the lug
hole so it should center right up. The straps have to
be long enough that the hole doesn't move measurably
when lifted to allow the spar to pass under.
Maybe this picture is in your manual and you can see
how I improved on their alternative method. If not,
let me know and maybe I can come up with another
picture.
Hope that helps.
Kurt S.
--- Jimmie Blackwell <jablackwell@ev1.net> wrote:
>
> Kurt
> Great information and I really appreciate the time
> you have taken to
> enlighten me. I am still confused about what a
> blind hole finder is. I'll
> do some research on the web though. I am a bit dumb
> about some of the terms
> as I am a first time builder and have just never
> used a lot of the tools
> that are necessary to build the Kitfox.
>
> Thanks so much Kurt
__________________________________
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model 3 with VW peformance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com>
I have been wanting to ask someone bout the GEO metro engine. How does
the GEO in your Model 2 work and how does it compare with a 582 powered
plane?
Thanks.
Steve M wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve M" <ondeck355@hotmail.com>
>
>The KR's are small, very slippery little airframes with mostly high-speed
>handling characteristics. And the Kitfoxes, frankly, aren't.
>
>Most people using VWs in larger, draggy airframes have found greater
>takeoff, climb, and cruise rates when they use a reduction drive. One of the
>problems with the aircooled VW bug engine, is that in stock form (i.e. still
>in the car) it develops its rated horsepower around 4000-4400 RPM. Even a
>direct-drive prop can't turn that fast (unless it's REALLY teensy, I've
>never seen such), and so the direct-drive engine must run at a reduced
>speed, maybe 3500 tops, and so a reduced power.
>
>Several companies make reduction drives, either geared or belt-driven. These
>allow the engine to turn up to its rated power, and also let it swing a much
>larger prop more slowly, which is more efficient than a small, fast-turning
>prop. (Did you know that the B-29 Superfortress of WWII had geared engines,
>and turned their propellers at 900 RPM during cruise? Course, having 3,000
>cubic inches in each engine helped too).
>
>I'd be curious what displacement these various VW engines in Kitfoxes had,
>and what modifications. Many companies offer large-displacement pistons and
>cylinders for VW conversions, both for automotive and aircraft use. The most
>common aircooled VW car engines have 1500 or 1600 cc in stock form and put
>out 55 to 65 HP, but conversions often go up to 1800 or 2200 cc, and
>possibly more. This imposes additional stress on other engine parts, often
>necessitating a custom-made crankshaft, crankcase, and other substitutions.
>Custom cylinder heads are also often used in the big-bore engines. Frankly,
>by the time you get a big-bore VW engine in the air, there aren't many parts
>left that were made by VW.
>
>If I were putting a VW engine in a Kitfox, I'd first investigate the
>conversions made by Great Planes, Revmaster, and other companies (See the
>ads in Sport Aviation, Trade-a-Plane, etc.), and simultaneously look into
>reduction drives. Some of those big-bore engines are advertised to put out
>as much as 80 or 100 HP. I wonder what propellers they use, and what the
>prop efficiency is (Faster-turning props generally have lower efficiency).
>
>I'd definitely go with a big-bore conversion and a reduction drive. Without
>either, performance would probably be mediocre. But with them, a Kitfox with
>a four-stroke engine putting out 80 to 100 HP (if those engines really do
>that) and swinging an efficient prop, would be a pretty hot performer.
>
>Caveat emptor.
>
>Steve Maher
>Kitfox Model 2, Geo Metro engine, 55 HP with PSRU
>San Diego, CA
>
>Click, drag and drop. My MSN is the simple way to design your homepage.
>http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model 3 with VW peformance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com>
Hi;
I did a lot of research trying to make a Mosler work in an Avid. It was
a 2185 cc. or big bore engine. The intake manifold was early kitchen
sink design and the Posa carburetor was not up to the challenge. We gave
up when on a hot summer day, the ceiling for the aircraft was 5500 feet.
On any of these small direct drive engines like the Jabiru, you have to
run at least 3300 rpm to get the stated horsepower and this means you
are running something like a 62 inch prop. This works on a small sharp
nosed plane like a KR or a Sonex, but not well on broad cowled planes
like the Avid or Kitfox..
John
Bill Pleso wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bill Pleso" <bill77@cox.net>
>
>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model 3 with VW peformance
>
>
> Virtually all of the KR's are running VW (or corvair) engines with
>cruise speed of 140 and UP and very impressive climb rates. It's odd that
>the VW can perform so well in one type of plane yet fall on it's face in
>another type (I know, it's apples and oranges). The Classic IV I purchase
>was 10 years old and still unassembled. It came with a Mosler VW
>conversion. Part of my brain says to use some other engine that has a
>proven track record in a Kitfox, and another part considers this a
>challenge. My wife says the best way to get me to do something is to say
>"It can't be done". I've decided to pick up the gauntlet and see if I can
>make the combo work. It sounds like there's only a couple of people out
>there running VWs in their Kitfox. If there are others, it would be helpful
>to hear what kind of problems they've had and how they addressed them.
>Bill
>
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model 3 with VW peformance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Ed Veneck <edveneck@yahoo.com>
Have you ever considered a Corvair. Im building one
with plans in installing it in a Rans Coyote.
Check out this link for more information:
http://www.corvaircraft.com/
Ed
--- Steve M <ondeck355@hotmail.com> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve M"
> <ondeck355@hotmail.com>
>
> The KR's are small, very slippery little airframes
> with mostly high-speed
> handling characteristics. And the Kitfoxes, frankly,
> aren't.
>
> Most people using VWs in larger, draggy airframes
> have found greater
> takeoff, climb, and cruise rates when they use a
> reduction drive. One of the
> problems with the aircooled VW bug engine, is that
> in stock form (i.e. still
> in the car) it develops its rated horsepower around
> 4000-4400 RPM. Even a
> direct-drive prop can't turn that fast (unless it's
> REALLY teensy, I've
> never seen such), and so the direct-drive engine
> must run at a reduced
> speed, maybe 3500 tops, and so a reduced power.
>
> Several companies make reduction drives, either
> geared or belt-driven. These
> allow the engine to turn up to its rated power, and
> also let it swing a much
> larger prop more slowly, which is more efficient
> than a small, fast-turning
> prop. (Did you know that the B-29 Superfortress of
> WWII had geared engines,
> and turned their propellers at 900 RPM during
> cruise? Course, having 3,000
> cubic inches in each engine helped too).
>
> I'd be curious what displacement these various VW
> engines in Kitfoxes had,
> and what modifications. Many companies offer
> large-displacement pistons and
> cylinders for VW conversions, both for automotive
> and aircraft use. The most
> common aircooled VW car engines have 1500 or 1600 cc
> in stock form and put
> out 55 to 65 HP, but conversions often go up to 1800
> or 2200 cc, and
> possibly more. This imposes additional stress on
> other engine parts, often
> necessitating a custom-made crankshaft, crankcase,
> and other substitutions.
> Custom cylinder heads are also often used in the
> big-bore engines. Frankly,
> by the time you get a big-bore VW engine in the air,
> there aren't many parts
> left that were made by VW.
>
> If I were putting a VW engine in a Kitfox, I'd first
> investigate the
> conversions made by Great Planes, Revmaster, and
> other companies (See the
> ads in Sport Aviation, Trade-a-Plane, etc.), and
> simultaneously look into
> reduction drives. Some of those big-bore engines are
> advertised to put out
> as much as 80 or 100 HP. I wonder what propellers
> they use, and what the
> prop efficiency is (Faster-turning props generally
> have lower efficiency).
>
> I'd definitely go with a big-bore conversion and a
> reduction drive. Without
> either, performance would probably be mediocre. But
> with them, a Kitfox with
> a four-stroke engine putting out 80 to 100 HP (if
> those engines really do
> that) and swinging an efficient prop, would be a
> pretty hot performer.
>
> Caveat emptor.
>
> Steve Maher
> Kitfox Model 2, Geo Metro engine, 55 HP with PSRU
> San Diego, CA
>
> Click, drag and drop. My MSN is the simple way to
> design your homepage.
>
http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/chat
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Warpdrive props |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Thomas" <jeffthomas@ntlworld.com>
Does anyone on this list have the address or contact details of the UK agent
or importer of Warpdrive props they could let me have please?
Regards
Jeff
Do not archive
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model 3 with VW peformance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Hi Steve and John,
I was going to ask the same question, so now it's two of us- at least..
:) ..
BTW. a good insight of the engine for the VW. - Volks Wagen (Folk's
Wagon ?) or Folkevogn as we say here in Norway..
Torgeir.
John Larsen wrote:
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com>
>
> I have been wanting to ask someone bout the GEO metro engine. How does
> the GEO in your Model 2 work and how does it compare with a 582 powered
> plane?
> Thanks.
>
> Steve M wrote:
>
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve M" <ondeck355@hotmail.com>
> >
> >The KR's are small, very slippery little airframes with mostly high-speed
> >handling characteristics. And the Kitfoxes, frankly, aren't.
> >
> >Most people using VWs in larger, draggy airframes have found greater
> >takeoff, climb, and cruise rates when they use a reduction drive. One of the
> >problems with the aircooled VW bug engine, is that in stock form (i.e. still
> >in the car) it develops its rated horsepower around 4000-4400 RPM. Even a
> >direct-drive prop can't turn that fast (unless it's REALLY teensy, I've
> >never seen such), and so the direct-drive engine must run at a reduced
> >speed, maybe 3500 tops, and so a reduced power.
> >
> >Several companies make reduction drives, either geared or belt-driven. These
> >allow the engine to turn up to its rated power, and also let it swing a much
> >larger prop more slowly, which is more efficient than a small, fast-turning
> >prop. (Did you know that the B-29 Superfortress of WWII had geared engines,
> >and turned their propellers at 900 RPM during cruise? Course, having 3,000
> >cubic inches in each engine helped too).
> >
> >I'd be curious what displacement these various VW engines in Kitfoxes had,
> >and what modifications. Many companies offer large-displacement pistons and
> >cylinders for VW conversions, both for automotive and aircraft use. The most
> >common aircooled VW car engines have 1500 or 1600 cc in stock form and put
> >out 55 to 65 HP, but conversions often go up to 1800 or 2200 cc, and
> >possibly more. This imposes additional stress on other engine parts, often
> >necessitating a custom-made crankshaft, crankcase, and other substitutions.
> >Custom cylinder heads are also often used in the big-bore engines. Frankly,
> >by the time you get a big-bore VW engine in the air, there aren't many parts
> >left that were made by VW.
> >
> >If I were putting a VW engine in a Kitfox, I'd first investigate the
> >conversions made by Great Planes, Revmaster, and other companies (See the
> >ads in Sport Aviation, Trade-a-Plane, etc.), and simultaneously look into
> >reduction drives. Some of those big-bore engines are advertised to put out
> >as much as 80 or 100 HP. I wonder what propellers they use, and what the
> >prop efficiency is (Faster-turning props generally have lower efficiency).
> >
> >I'd definitely go with a big-bore conversion and a reduction drive. Without
> >either, performance would probably be mediocre. But with them, a Kitfox with
> >a four-stroke engine putting out 80 to 100 HP (if those engines really do
> >that) and swinging an efficient prop, would be a pretty hot performer.
> >
> >Caveat emptor.
> >
> >Steve Maher
> >Kitfox Model 2, Geo Metro engine, 55 HP with PSRU
> >San Diego, CA
> >
> >Click, drag and drop. My MSN is the simple way to design your homepage.
> >http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Tri-Gear Nose Weights? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dcecil3@aol.com
From: Dcecil3@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tri-Gear Nose Weights?
Sorry Hit the Enter key the first time lol.
Can any of the list users that have a Trigear Fox give me a nose weight of
your plane? I need empty weight as well as weight at gross.(Please include the
Model of your plane and it's gross as well) . I'm in the process of designing
a "Steerable" nose wheel for my Model 3 and I want to use a Gas Spring
,simular to the one on the Kitfox doors, only these are a lot heavier for industrial
use and can be rated to 1,000 Lbs.I have one of these on my Challenger now
and they make a great Nose strut. Thanks in Advance for your help
Best
David Cecil
KF3#950
Sorry Hit the Enter=20key the first time lol.
Can any of the list users that have a Trigear Fox give me a nose weight of your
plane? I need empty weight as well as weight at gross.(Please include the Model
of your plane and it's gross as well) . I'm in the process of designing a
"Steerable" nose wheel for my Model 3 and I want to use a Gas Spring ,simular
to the one on the Kitfox doors, only these are a lot heavier=20for industrial
use and can be rated to 1,000 Lbs.I have one of these on my Challenger now and
they make a great Nose strut. Thanks in Advance for=20your help
Best
David Cecil
KF3#950
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model 3 with VW peformance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilocom@c-magic.com>
AMEN
Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve M" <ondeck355@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model 3 with VW peformance
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve M" <ondeck355@hotmail.com>
>
> The KR's are small, very slippery little airframes with mostly high-speed
> handling characteristics. And the Kitfoxes, frankly, aren't.
>
> Most people using VWs in larger, draggy airframes have found greater
> takeoff, climb, and cruise rates when they use a reduction drive. One of
the
> problems with the aircooled VW bug engine, is that in stock form (i.e.
still
> in the car) it develops its rated horsepower around 4000-4400 RPM. Even a
> direct-drive prop can't turn that fast (unless it's REALLY teensy, I've
> never seen such), and so the direct-drive engine must run at a reduced
> speed, maybe 3500 tops, and so a reduced power.
>
> Several companies make reduction drives, either geared or belt-driven.
These
> allow the engine to turn up to its rated power, and also let it swing a
much
> larger prop more slowly, which is more efficient than a small,
fast-turning
> prop. (Did you know that the B-29 Superfortress of WWII had geared
engines,
> and turned their propellers at 900 RPM during cruise? Course, having 3,000
> cubic inches in each engine helped too).
>
> I'd be curious what displacement these various VW engines in Kitfoxes had,
> and what modifications. Many companies offer large-displacement pistons
and
> cylinders for VW conversions, both for automotive and aircraft use. The
most
> common aircooled VW car engines have 1500 or 1600 cc in stock form and put
> out 55 to 65 HP, but conversions often go up to 1800 or 2200 cc, and
> possibly more. This imposes additional stress on other engine parts, often
> necessitating a custom-made crankshaft, crankcase, and other
substitutions.
> Custom cylinder heads are also often used in the big-bore engines.
Frankly,
> by the time you get a big-bore VW engine in the air, there aren't many
parts
> left that were made by VW.
>
> If I were putting a VW engine in a Kitfox, I'd first investigate the
> conversions made by Great Planes, Revmaster, and other companies (See the
> ads in Sport Aviation, Trade-a-Plane, etc.), and simultaneously look into
> reduction drives. Some of those big-bore engines are advertised to put out
> as much as 80 or 100 HP. I wonder what propellers they use, and what the
> prop efficiency is (Faster-turning props generally have lower efficiency).
>
> I'd definitely go with a big-bore conversion and a reduction drive.
Without
> either, performance would probably be mediocre. But with them, a Kitfox
with
> a four-stroke engine putting out 80 to 100 HP (if those engines really do
> that) and swinging an efficient prop, would be a pretty hot performer.
>
> Caveat emptor.
>
> Steve Maher
> Kitfox Model 2, Geo Metro engine, 55 HP with PSRU
> San Diego, CA
>
> Click, drag and drop. My MSN is the simple way to design your homepage.
> http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/
>
>
> ---
>
>
---
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Model 3 with VW peformance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron@tvp.com.au>
With respect, I disagree with your comments in relation to the Jabiru. I run my
Avid Speedwing with a Jabiru 2200 engine and a prince prop (55" dia). I get
1000 fpm climb and a reliable 115 mph cruise and have a service ceiling of about
12000 feet. I know a guy with an identical plane who outclimbs me and outruns
me with the Jabiru prop. Of course, maybe the Avid is just a better performing
plane than the kitfox:)
Allan
-----Original Message-----
From: John Larsen [mailto:jopatco@mindspring.com]
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model 3 with VW peformance
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com>
Hi;
I did a lot of research trying to make a Mosler work in an Avid. It was
a 2185 cc. or big bore engine. The intake manifold was early kitchen
sink design and the Posa carburetor was not up to the challenge. We gave
up when on a hot summer day, the ceiling for the aircraft was 5500 feet.
On any of these small direct drive engines like the Jabiru, you have to
run at least 3300 rpm to get the stated horsepower and this means you
are running something like a 62 inch prop. This works on a small sharp
nosed plane like a KR or a Sonex, but not well on broad cowled planes
like the Avid or Kitfox..
John
Bill Pleso wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bill Pleso" <bill77@cox.net>
>
>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model 3 with VW peformance
>
>
> Virtually all of the KR's are running VW (or corvair) engines with
>cruise speed of 140 and UP and very impressive climb rates. It's odd that
>the VW can perform so well in one type of plane yet fall on it's face in
>another type (I know, it's apples and oranges). The Classic IV I purchase
>was 10 years old and still unassembled. It came with a Mosler VW
>conversion. Part of my brain says to use some other engine that has a
>proven track record in a Kitfox, and another part considers this a
>challenge. My wife says the best way to get me to do something is to say
>"It can't be done". I've decided to pick up the gauntlet and see if I can
>make the combo work. It sounds like there's only a couple of people out
>there running VWs in their Kitfox. If there are others, it would be helpful
>to hear what kind of problems they've had and how they addressed them.
>Bill
>
>
>
>
The information transmitted in this email is intended only for the person(s) or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary and/or
privileged material.
If you are not the intended recipient(s), any retention, review, retransmission,
disclosure, distribution, dissemination, copying, printing, or other use of,
or the taking of any
action in reliance upon, this information is strictly prohibited and without liability
on our part. If you have received this email in error, please contact
the sender by replying
and delete this email from any computer so that it is not recoverable. Technology
Venture Partners does not guarantee the integrity of any emails or attached
files.
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Model 3 with VW peformance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron@tvp.com.au>
There was a typo in my post .. my friend also uses a Prince prop. I meant to say
"Jabiru engine" not "Jabiru prop".
Allan
-----Original Message-----
From: Allan Aaron
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model 3 with VW peformance
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron@tvp.com.au>
With respect, I disagree with your comments in relation to the Jabiru. I run my
Avid Speedwing with a Jabiru 2200 engine and a prince prop (55" dia). I get
1000 fpm climb and a reliable 115 mph cruise and have a service ceiling of about
12000 feet. I know a guy with an identical plane who outclimbs me and outruns
me with the Jabiru prop. Of course, maybe the Avid is just a better performing
plane than the kitfox:)
Allan
-----Original Message-----
From: John Larsen [mailto:jopatco@mindspring.com]
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model 3 with VW peformance
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com>
Hi;
I did a lot of research trying to make a Mosler work in an Avid. It was
a 2185 cc. or big bore engine. The intake manifold was early kitchen
sink design and the Posa carburetor was not up to the challenge. We gave
up when on a hot summer day, the ceiling for the aircraft was 5500 feet.
On any of these small direct drive engines like the Jabiru, you have to
run at least 3300 rpm to get the stated horsepower and this means you
are running something like a 62 inch prop. This works on a small sharp
nosed plane like a KR or a Sonex, but not well on broad cowled planes
like the Avid or Kitfox..
John
Bill Pleso wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bill Pleso" <bill77@cox.net>
>
>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Model 3 with VW peformance
>
>
> Virtually all of the KR's are running VW (or corvair) engines with
>cruise speed of 140 and UP and very impressive climb rates. It's odd that
>the VW can perform so well in one type of plane yet fall on it's face in
>another type (I know, it's apples and oranges). The Classic IV I purchase
>was 10 years old and still unassembled. It came with a Mosler VW
>conversion. Part of my brain says to use some other engine that has a
>proven track record in a Kitfox, and another part considers this a
>challenge. My wife says the best way to get me to do something is to say
>"It can't be done". I've decided to pick up the gauntlet and see if I can
>make the combo work. It sounds like there's only a couple of people out
>there running VWs in their Kitfox. If there are others, it would be helpful
>to hear what kind of problems they've had and how they addressed them.
>Bill
>
>
>
>
The information transmitted in this email is intended only for the person(s) or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary and/or
privileged material.
If you are not the intended recipient(s), any retention, review, retransmission,
disclosure, distribution, dissemination, copying, printing, or other use of,
or the taking of any
action in reliance upon, this information is strictly prohibited and without liability
on our part. If you have received this email in error, please contact
the sender by replying
and delete this email from any computer so that it is not recoverable. Technology
Venture Partners does not guarantee the integrity of any emails or attached
files.
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Warpdrive props |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Hi Jeff,
Try this one, also added a link to some vendors in GB.
Skydrive:
Burnside, Deppers Bridge, Leamington Spa
Rotax engines, Ballistic chutes, Props, Instruments.
Tel: 01926 612188
(Fax 613781)
e-mail: skydrive@avnet.co.uk
Here is a link to the vendor list:
http://www.pfa.org.uk/pdf_docs/engineering/information_leaflets/list_of_suppliers.pdf
Torgeir.
Jeff Thomas wrote:
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Thomas" <jeffthomas@ntlworld.com>
>
> Does anyone on this list have the address or contact details of the UK agent
> or importer of Warpdrive props they could let me have please?
>
> Regards
>
> Jeff
>
> Do not archive
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EGT Cold Joint Calibration point (Westberg types). |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Hi There,
Well, not much response here, :) ..
The reason for the specific calibration point is due to the "simple"
connection between the thermocouple and the (cu) copper wires routed to
the instrument.
Remember, there is actually two thermocouples connected in serial, -and
working against each other! So, if you put the cold junction physically
together with the "sensing" probe you see no temperature reading at all.
(This caused by the fact they are sensing the same temperature, and are
canceling each other out.)
Our EGT indicator measure the difference between the cold junction and
the probe, so we need to know the temperature at the cold junction to be
able to calculate the true temperature at the EGT tip.
If you have such a splice between the thermocouple and copper wire
(extension to the instrument), this splice is your cold junction point.
We all know the "add on" temp device's for car's, the one with out/in
temperature. Such unit have an external sensor with extension wire to be
put outside, and the inner temperature is sensed by an internal sensing
device inside the unit. Most of such unit's have the possibility to set
the temp. in deg. F or deg C. Very handy for our use. I bought two of
them, in order to have two external sensors on one unit. This, because I
installed the inner sensor at the cold junction for my EGT indicator. In
this way, I've managed to have a realistic cold junction temperature.
Finally, it's a good idea to check your unit for the zero deg. (or 32
deg. F) point, done with the sensors put into a mixture of ice and
water.
In the beginning of this "theme", I "indicated"; it's possible to make a
"more" correct cold junction point, I.E. there will not be any error due
to the "undesirable" cold junction used in our "less" expensive setup.
So, remember; the calibration temperature, is the "cold junction"
surrounding temperature that give the most accurate EGT temperature
indicated-, but you most correct for the cold junction temperature.
Next, a setup with cold junction CORRECTION, will indicate the "true"
EGT at the sensor tip, -and there is no need for any correction here.
This kind of system is normally "a lot" more expensive.
Later on-, I'll give some examples of the better cold junction set up,
vs. the "undesirable".
OK. We can always discuss the need for better, -or more accurate cold
junction in our kind of setup. But one thing is sure, you should never
relay on a single engine parameter -in engine management.
Now, I'll like to give some flowers, over the yrs. I've seen quite some
books about thermocouples and theory around such setups. One of the
better, and more complete explanations is from Bob Nuckolls (at Aero
Electric Connection).
If you are interested in some more about EGT and thermocouples, go to
this direct link:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/excerpt.pdf
Torgeir.
Torgeir Mortensen wrote:
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> You know, you can buy two different types of "SAME" EGT indicator, they
> look the same and no visual difference. So, what's the difference?
>
> The difference is in the instrument's P/N., and this tell you about the
> calibration temperature, or better, the temperature where the instrument
> is "most" accurate.
>
> There is two calibration temperatures, one at 32 deg. F and the other at
> 70 deg. F. The one calibrated at 32 deg. F. is identified with a "S"
> after the P/N., and the 70 deg. F. version has the P/N. without this "S"
> index.
>
> The "S" version is said to be used for snowmobiles, the other one is for
> our use, -or is it?
>
> Here is a link to Westberg site stating this:
>
> http://www.frostalarm.com/cat/clone.html
>
> Now, here is the question; Why is it necessary to have two calibration
> point?
>
> Lots of us, esp. those living in the "inland", can have temperature's
> qualifying for the "S" model in the winter, -and the "origin" we are
> using in the summer, agree?
>
> Can't we have just one calibration point for all conditions?
>
> A little to remember; An EGT thermocouple system is reading differential
> temperature, the different between the cold junction and our EGT probe.
>
> If the actual cockpit temp. is less than the "cal. temp." the indicator
> show to high reading, and if the cockpit temp. is higher than the "cal.
> temp." the instrument read to low.
>
> Also, the cold junction temperature is said to be the same as the
> cockpit temperature, is it? And-, how many of us have a thermometer for
> cockpit temperature?
>
> Well, you've got something to ponder about for the weekend (, if the
> weather is bad) :) ...
>
> Regards,
>
> Torgeir.
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Back on the list |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ted Palamarek" <temco@telusplanet.net>
David
I'm surprised it's not higher. Most of the roads and
population are within a stones throw of the 49th parallel.
Once you get past about 56 degrees north there aren't to
many roads running east/west with only a few running north
such as the Alaska Highway, Mackenzie highway and a couple
more in Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec. The rest going
north is nothing but moose pasture and diamond mines. (Three
now in progress and many more test drilling) In spite of the
lack of roads as Marc said the scenery is FANTASTIC
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Ted
Edmonton, Ab
-
<<<<<March and David said>>>>>
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Dawe"
<davedawe@3web.net>
Marc 70% sounds high???
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Arseneault" <northernultralights@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Back on the list
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Marc Arseneault"
<northernultralights@hotmail.com>
>
>
> <EM>Thanks Kurt! Canada is a very nice place to fly. 70%
of our country is
accessible only by air leaving us with some really nice
country to explore
and excellent fishing and hunting. Once I am licensed, I
will send you some
pictures of our country and of course some of fishing. As
for the best
stories from the North, Shane Sather who lives in Nunavut
that owns a Lite
Squared with a 912S probably has really good stories to tell
us. The last
time I talked to Shane, it was -45 C in Nunavut when we were
at -15 Cin
Sudbury. Our winters are cold but nothing compared to
theirs. One of my
dreams is tovisit Alaska!</EM>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|