Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:56 AM - No emails from list? (David Dawe)
2. 05:44 AM - Facet Fuel pump on NSI Subaru EA 81 (Clem Nichols)
3. 06:11 AM - Re: Facet Fuel pump on NSI Subaru EA 81 (Steve Zakreski)
4. 06:21 AM - Fuel Sight Tube (Steve Zakreski)
5. 06:40 AM - Re: IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison - Captain Zoom (Jeff Hays)
6. 06:50 AM - Re: Facet Fuel pump on NSI Subaru EA 81 (Steve Zakreski)
7. 07:49 AM - Re: Fuel Sight Tube (Lowell Fitt)
8. 08:21 AM - Re: No emails from list? (Don Pearsall)
9. 09:40 AM - Re: Fuel Sight Tube (Steve Zakreski)
10. 09:41 AM - Re: Fuel Sight Tube (JMCBEAN)
11. 09:44 AM - Re: IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison - Captain (Steve Zakreski)
12. 11:06 AM - Re: Fuel Sight Tube (Bill Hammond)
13. 11:46 AM - Re: Fuel Sight Tube (Steve Zakreski)
14. 02:09 PM - Re: Fuel Sight Tube (Bill Hammond)
15. 05:58 PM - Re: IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison - Captain Zoom (Paul Seehafer)
16. 06:23 PM - Re: Low Fuel Level Indicator (Wwillyard@aol.com)
17. 07:41 PM - TEST (Bob Robertson)
18. 08:14 PM - Re: IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison - Captain Zoom (aselia.com)
19. 08:58 PM - Re: 582 Power loss (david yeamans)
20. 11:15 PM - Re: Fuel Sight Tube (Dave & Wendy Grosvenor)
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: | No emails from list? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Dawe" <davedawe@3web.net>
Broken??
----- Original Message -----
From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor@online.no>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 582 Power loss
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
>
> With these data; 110 MPH and 6500 RPM in a dive, your propeller must be
> over pitched, as others already pointed. As an example; my Fox (mod II)
> hit Vne at 100 MPH, if I put her in a dive, the engine will over rev
> long before I'll reach Vne. In summertime, you can "slightly" over pitch
> and not "notice" this much. Small changes in pressure, temperature
> engine mixture etc., can give change in engine RPM, when "slightly"
> over-pitched, from day to day.
>
> But, during wintertime, with high pressure and high density (low
> temperature), your engine can't turn this same propeller. So try
> re-pitching your prop. and I think You'll have a "new" engine.
>
> BTW., here is the direct link to a site, with GSC's recommendation for
> pitching "different propeller types" / "gearbox ratios" / "engine
> combinations".
>
> http://www.ultralightprops.com/pitchset.htm
>
>
> If you buy an IVO prop, re-pitching take less than 2 min., well- say 3
> min. including the lock-wiring.. :-)
>
>
> Good luck.
>
> Torgeir.
>
>
> david yeamans wrote:
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "david yeamans" <dafox@ckt.net>
> >
> > Dear Torgeir,
> >
> > Thanks for your input and concern, there has been a lot of
response
> > on the problem with the 582 power loss. It seems to be a problem with
more
> > than one solution. finding that solution is a problem. When this power
loss
> > first happened .I too thought it could be on the edge of a seizure, but
that
> > was not the problem, Happy about that !!!!!!
> >
> > After putting the nose down the power comes up, but a little
sluggish.
> > When I was testing, my daughter drives in the driveway at the end of the
runway, I decide to make a low high speed pass, and that it was, I had to
> > throutle back to keep from exceeding the VNE . The engine reved to 6500
> > RPM and I was right at 110 MPH, I did have a down hill start though.
Now,
> > wouldn't you think everything was OK. Not so, on ground roll, again, the
> > power droped off to 5100 to 5200.
> >
> > I don't remember if I richen'd or leaned the Carbs at the first
problem,
> > that was over a year ago. However this time, I went both directions,
and
> > either one didn't help. I am' going to replace the " Pulse " line to
the Fuel pump just to make sure that will not be the problem,
> >
> > I'm enclined to believe this is a fuel problem also. But Where
?
> >
> >
David
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Torgeir Mortensen
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 5:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 582 Power loss
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen
<torgemor@online.no>
> >
> > Hi David,
> >
> > Must say, when I first read through this I was thinking about seizure,
> > of some kind. However, when you say; put the nose down-, do you really
> > get full power from that point(?), I.E. can climb as normal with 6200
or
> > so- RPM?
> >
> > You said the first (time) change of the needle height corrected the
> > problem, did you lift the needle (enrich) or ?.
> >
> > I'll think this is a fuel "starving" problem, and something is getting
> > worse.
> >
> > Low nose really increase (gravity) fuel pressure, so ..
> >
> > I a "past" discussion, someone mentioned that you can fly with just
> > gravity fuel, but the RPM will be restricted- and high EGT.
> >
> > Have you checked the "pulse" line between the fuel pump and the
engine?
> > If this one is leaking (small invisible cracks), your fuel pressure is
> > reduced.
> >
> > My best guess..
> >
> > Good luck
> >
> > Torgeir.
> >
> > (PS. Don't fly before this thing is fixed..)
> >
> > david yeamans wrote:
> > >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "david yeamans" <dafox@ckt.net>
> > >
> > > I know this issue is about three weeks old, but my 582 is having
that
> > > same kind of power loss, again. (RPM slowing down to 5100 to 5200
> > > on ground roll ) I was wondering after all the suggestions, if it
solved anyones problem ?
> > >
> > > I had this problem a year ago december, 2002. My first thought was
the
> > > fuel sence it was over 60 days old. I drained both tanks and header
tank,
> > > and replaced with fresh fuel, purged the lines, done a fuel flow
test, it
> > > tested at 12 gals an hr. fuel pump was working, checked floats in
carbs.
> > > OK, installed new plugs, even put in new battery. none of this
worked !!
> > > After a suggestion to call an authorized Rotax dealer and explain
the
> > > problem. He said the Nut on the Tapered Prop shaft that is connected
> > > in the Gear Box, needs tighten'd. He said he's tighten'd 100's of
them,
> > > and no doubt , that is the problem. Took off the gear box, after
draining,
> > > went to town to find a big mechanic with a big wrench. He put all he
had
> > > on the wrench and felt like it was tight as it could get. .....
Reasembled
> > > everything, went to fly, and the same thing. power loss on ground
roll.
> > > called Rotax again, the same guy said I needed a cheater bar and
put
> > > more grunt into it. This time the wrench is 3 feet long. reasembled
,went
> > > to fly, and still the same thing, Called the Rotax guy again, and
he said
> > > to put a longer cheater bar on the wrench, 4 or 5 feet if necessary.
A Pilot
> > > friend of mine who weighs 240 lbs was on the end of this 5 foot
wrench
> > > giving it all he had. nothing broke !! I was surprised !!!
Reasembled, went
> > > to fly and still the same thing. I didn't call Rotax back. and a
funny thing,
> > > I asked the Rotax dealer and shop mechanic at the time if it could
be the
> > > fuel, and he said,no way. Well, to make a long story longer. My
240
> > > lb friend suggested to re set the neddle jet to a different setting,
I said it
> > > won't do any good,after all,I was told from the true source that
wasn't the
> > > problem. I moved the Jet one knotch, and the 582 has performed
> > > perfect ever sense................. Until now. I installed new
plugs, changed
> > > the Jet needle setting in the Carbs, from full rich to next to full
lean, and still
> > > nothing helps. What worked before, doesn't work now.
> > >
> > > What do I do now ? Help !!!
> > >
> > > At 5100 RPM the 582 developes 43.6 HP. Enough to still fly the
Kitfox,
> > > which I do. After reaching pattern altitude and level off, I put
the nose down
> > > the engine picks up speed, and from there on the engine performs
just fine.
> > > Until the next ground roll. and then the same thing, until I get to
pattern
> > > altitude and put the nose down.
> > >
> >
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Facet Fuel pump on NSI Subaru EA 81 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Help please:
A planned flight yesterday on the most beautiful day in months had to be scrubbed
when the Facet electric fuel pump failed to work. I could find no loose wires
or burned out fuses, and as I didn't have a multitester with me could only
return home very disappointed. In reading the installation sheet for the fuel
pump I notice that it says more than once that the battery must be at full
charge to start up the pump. I think it's extremely unlikely that the battery
would have enough charge to turn the engine over in a normal manner and still
not have enough charge to operate the fuel pump, but thought I would run it by
group members to see if anyone had experienced such a situation. (I guess it's
human nature to grope for simple solutions) Also regarding the electrical
solenoid primer: can anyone tell me where it's located? Many thanks for your
help.
Clem Nichols
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: | Facet Fuel pump on NSI Subaru EA 81 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
Clem
My fuel pump works even with a weak battery. If you have enough juice to
turn over the engine it should surely be working.
The primer is that 3 inch long cylindrical device on top and in front of the
carb. It is simply a solenoid valve which allows raw fuel under pressure
from the fuel pump to spray into the intake.
SteveZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Clem Nichols
Subject: Kitfox-List: Facet Fuel pump on NSI Subaru EA 81
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Help please:
A planned flight yesterday on the most beautiful day in months had to be
scrubbed when the Facet electric fuel pump failed to work. I could find no
loose wires or burned out fuses, and as I didn't have a multitester with me
could only return home very disappointed. In reading the installation sheet
for the fuel pump I notice that it says more than once that the battery
must be at full charge to start up the pump. I think it's extremely
unlikely that the battery would have enough charge to turn the engine over
in a normal manner and still not have enough charge to operate the fuel
pump, but thought I would run it by group members to see if anyone had
experienced such a situation. (I guess it's human nature to grope for
simple solutions) Also regarding the electrical solenoid primer: can
anyone tell me where it's located? Many thanks for your help.
Clem Nichols
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
I have a persistent leak in one of my sight tube fittings on my Classic 4.
My sight tube assembly supplied from Skystar is two rather unusual black
threaded adapters that thread into the tank, with internal O-rings that
accept the plastic sight tube.
Question: Is this still the system used by Skystar. Has someone found
something that works better.
SteveZ
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: | IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison - Captain Zoom |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Hays" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
US Aviator magazine, eh? Here's a nice complimetary article
to go along with the one you mention.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ousterj/zoom.html
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Paul
Seehafer
Subject: Kitfox-List: IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Hi Gang:
Was browsing through an old magazine article about the one-off Kitfox
Biplane, and stumbled upon a short article about a flight test between a
Kitfox equipped with a Continental IO-240 and a Rotax 914 in the back of the
same magazine. Thought it was pretty interesting. Might even help some
trying to decide on an engine choice? So here it is word for word:
"Kitfox 914 / Kitfox 240 Flight Tests" (U.S. Aviator December 1995)
Recent test-flight experiences allowed us to be the first magazine
(ahem...as usual) to compare the Continental IO-240 powered Kitfox to the
Rotax Turbocharged 914 version. We had flown the IO-240 powered Kitfox at
Sun-N-Fun and were surprised to see how little the extra weight impacted the
light handling and harmonies of the standard Model V Kitfox. Top speeds
seen were in the 140 mph range and claimed top speeds of 150+ mph seemed
quite reasonable from what we saw. The additional weight did give a
slightly more ponderous feel to the "Fox" but the overall handling was only
modestly impacted by the heavier four-banging 125 hp Continental.
However, the gang at Rotax was kind enough to fly a new Rotax 914 powered
Kitfox to our office to show off, and despite the fact that the 914
supposedly provides a few less horses (100 hp continuously and 115 at
take-off, restricted to five minute intervals), the Kitfox 914 has mucho
guts and lots of cruise speed. To make a long story short, the 914 powered
Fox keeps up with the IO-240 in every respect and outclimbs it, to boot.
While the IO-240 ship seems pretty settled in its way at 1200 to 1300 fpm in
climb (max observed), the lighter 914 powered bird easily maintains a solid
1500 to 1600 fpm throughout climbs to 6500'.
Top speeds are in a similar range... close to 150 mph true but 135-140 in
cruise. What is most impressive about the 914 though, is the fact that the
engine is truly a product of the 1990's... rather than a WWII technology
retread. The 914 can be equipped with a fully computer controlled
monitoring system that will monitor critical engine parameters, actually
keeping the engine from exceeding several of them, and keep a record of
everything that has happened. This record can be downloaded to Rotax's
slick little FLYDAT system and then output to any computer printer via a
parallel cable. I saw the system in operation and I have to admit, I'm
impressed.
Now... both engines are gonna be pretty pricey... but in the case of the
914, I have to say that for a change, the extra cost would seem to be worth
it. I'll be doing a lot more research into this engine in the future, I
promise.
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: | Facet Fuel pump on NSI Subaru EA 81 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
Correction: 1" diameter, 1.5" long.
SteveZ
Calgary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve
Zakreski
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Facet Fuel pump on NSI Subaru EA 81
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
Clem
My fuel pump works even with a weak battery. If you have enough juice to
turn over the engine it should surely be working.
The primer is that 3 inch long cylindrical device on top and in front of the
carb. It is simply a solenoid valve which allows raw fuel under pressure
from the fuel pump to spray into the intake.
SteveZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Clem Nichols
Subject: Kitfox-List: Facet Fuel pump on NSI Subaru EA 81
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Help please:
A planned flight yesterday on the most beautiful day in months had to be
scrubbed when the Facet electric fuel pump failed to work. I could find no
loose wires or burned out fuses, and as I didn't have a multitester with me
could only return home very disappointed. In reading the installation sheet
for the fuel pump I notice that it says more than once that the battery
must be at full charge to start up the pump. I think it's extremely
unlikely that the battery would have enough charge to turn the engine over
in a normal manner and still not have enough charge to operate the fuel
pump, but thought I would run it by group members to see if anyone had
experienced such a situation. (I guess it's human nature to grope for
simple solutions) Also regarding the electrical solenoid primer: can
anyone tell me where it's located? Many thanks for your help.
Clem Nichols
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: Fuel Sight Tube |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Steve, do you have the aluminum tube inserts inside the site tube where the
O-rings clamp. In warm weather, the O-ring pressure will cause the tubing
to deform allowing for leakage.
About the Black fittings. I thought I would try something different and
ordered some fittings from ACS. They were almost identical, only white. I
gave up.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Zakreski" <szakreski@shaw.ca>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel Sight Tube
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
>
> I have a persistent leak in one of my sight tube fittings on my Classic
4.
> My sight tube assembly supplied from Skystar is two rather unusual black
> threaded adapters that thread into the tank, with internal O-rings that
> accept the plastic sight tube.
> Question: Is this still the system used by Skystar. Has someone found
> something that works better.
>
> SteveZ
>
>
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: | No emails from list? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall@comcast.net>
Dave,
Yesterday, there were 9 emails to the list, and so far, as of 8:19am Sunday
PST, there are 5. Let me know if you did not get any of these.
Don Pearsall
Admin.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
Lowell
Instead of an aluminium tube I filled the bottom of the sight tube with
epoxy, and then drilled a 1/32" hole. It should have done the same thing.
It guess I'll simply buy new fittings, and a new tube and start over. A
very small fuel leak sure can make a mess.
SteveZ
-----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: Fuel Sight Tube
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Steve, do you have the aluminum tube inserts inside the site tube where the
O-rings clamp. In warm weather, the O-ring pressure will cause the tubing
to deform allowing for leakage.
About the Black fittings. I thought I would try something different and
ordered some fittings from ACS. They were almost identical, only white. I
gave up.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Zakreski" <szakreski@shaw.ca>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel Sight Tube
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
>
> I have a persistent leak in one of my sight tube fittings on my Classic
4.
> My sight tube assembly supplied from Skystar is two rather unusual black
> threaded adapters that thread into the tank, with internal O-rings that
> accept the plastic sight tube.
> Question: Is this still the system used by Skystar. Has someone found
> something that works better.
>
> SteveZ
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "JMCBEAN" <JDMCBEAN@cableone.net>
Steve,
Yes that is the system the SS still uses..... I chose to use the blue
urethane fuel line & barbed fittings. I have heard reports that the clear
tubing yellows and gets brittle over time. I figure I'll check the blue
tubing periodically. If at annual time it needs to be replaced then I'll
replace it.
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 Steve Zakreski
Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel Sight Tube
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
I have a persistent leak in one of my sight tube fittings on my Classic 4.
My sight tube assembly supplied from Skystar is two rather unusual black
threaded adapters that thread into the tank, with internal O-rings that
accept the plastic sight tube.
Question: Is this still the system used by Skystar. Has someone found
something that works better.
SteveZ
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: | IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison - Captain |
Zoom
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca> Zoom
Wow...fun reading. Even our Don Pearsall is in there!
I seem to recall I lost a few bucks on a magazine subscription that never
showed up.
Oops...now I'm gonna get sued.
SteveZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jeff Hays
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison -
Captain Zoom
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Hays" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
US Aviator magazine, eh? Here's a nice complimetary article
to go along with the one you mention.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ousterj/zoom.html
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Paul
Seehafer
Subject: Kitfox-List: IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Hi Gang:
Was browsing through an old magazine article about the one-off Kitfox
Biplane, and stumbled upon a short article about a flight test between a
Kitfox equipped with a Continental IO-240 and a Rotax 914 in the back of the
same magazine. Thought it was pretty interesting. Might even help some
trying to decide on an engine choice? So here it is word for word:
"Kitfox 914 / Kitfox 240 Flight Tests" (U.S. Aviator December 1995)
Recent test-flight experiences allowed us to be the first magazine
(ahem...as usual) to compare the Continental IO-240 powered Kitfox to the
Rotax Turbocharged 914 version. We had flown the IO-240 powered Kitfox at
Sun-N-Fun and were surprised to see how little the extra weight impacted the
light handling and harmonies of the standard Model V Kitfox. Top speeds
seen were in the 140 mph range and claimed top speeds of 150+ mph seemed
quite reasonable from what we saw. The additional weight did give a
slightly more ponderous feel to the "Fox" but the overall handling was only
modestly impacted by the heavier four-banging 125 hp Continental.
However, the gang at Rotax was kind enough to fly a new Rotax 914 powered
Kitfox to our office to show off, and despite the fact that the 914
supposedly provides a few less horses (100 hp continuously and 115 at
take-off, restricted to five minute intervals), the Kitfox 914 has mucho
guts and lots of cruise speed. To make a long story short, the 914 powered
Fox keeps up with the IO-240 in every respect and outclimbs it, to boot.
While the IO-240 ship seems pretty settled in its way at 1200 to 1300 fpm in
climb (max observed), the lighter 914 powered bird easily maintains a solid
1500 to 1600 fpm throughout climbs to 6500'.
Top speeds are in a similar range... close to 150 mph true but 135-140 in
cruise. What is most impressive about the 914 though, is the fact that the
engine is truly a product of the 1990's... rather than a WWII technology
retread. The 914 can be equipped with a fully computer controlled
monitoring system that will monitor critical engine parameters, actually
keeping the engine from exceeding several of them, and keep a record of
everything that has happened. This record can be downloaded to Rotax's
slick little FLYDAT system and then output to any computer printer via a
parallel cable. I saw the system in operation and I have to admit, I'm
impressed.
Now... both engines are gonna be pretty pricey... but in the case of the
914, I have to say that for a change, the extra cost would seem to be worth
it. I'll be doing a lot more research into this engine in the future, I
promise.
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: Fuel Sight Tube |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Bill Hammond <kitfox@itsys3.com>
Steve:
I had problems with the Skystar butyrate sight tubes and the
Parker Hannefin (black) fittings also. After soliciting input
from the list, I elected to replace them with tygon and barbed
fittings. Since then, no leaks. There is a picture on my web
site at http://www.itsys3.com/kitfox/discover.shtml
Bill Hammond
Parker, CO
N913KF Kitfox Series 6
Steve Zakreski wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
>
> I have a persistent leak in one of my sight tube fittings on my Classic 4.
> My sight tube assembly supplied from Skystar is two rather unusual black
> threaded adapters that thread into the tank, with internal O-rings that
> accept the plastic sight tube.
> Question: Is this still the system used by Skystar. Has someone found
> something that works better.
>
> SteveZ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
I like your solution. Is there something inside the tygon tubing? Any
problem getting the tygon to make a 90 degree bend without kinking?
SteveZ
Calgary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bill Hammond
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Sight Tube
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Bill Hammond <kitfox@itsys3.com>
Steve:
I had problems with the Skystar butyrate sight tubes and the
Parker Hannefin (black) fittings also. After soliciting input
from the list, I elected to replace them with tygon and barbed
fittings. Since then, no leaks. There is a picture on my web
site at http://www.itsys3.com/kitfox/discover.shtml
Bill Hammond
Parker, CO
N913KF Kitfox Series 6
Steve Zakreski wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
>
> I have a persistent leak in one of my sight tube fittings on my Classic
4.
> My sight tube assembly supplied from Skystar is two rather unusual black
> threaded adapters that thread into the tank, with internal O-rings that
> accept the plastic sight tube.
> Question: Is this still the system used by Skystar. Has someone found
> something that works better.
>
> SteveZ
>
>
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: Fuel Sight Tube |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Bill Hammond <kitfox@itsys3.com>
Inside the tubing is a bare length of 12 awg copper wire. It
allowed me to form the 90 degree bends where the tubing connected
to the barb fittings. There was no real tendency to for the
tygon to kink. Seeing that this tubing remains flexible, the 90
degree angle is not as sharp as that formed in the original
Skystar butyrate tube.
The parts that I used all came from Aircraft Spruce:
(4) 0701-153 Nylon adapter 1/4 tube to 1/8 npt $0.36 each
(2 feet) 05-00500 Alcohol resistant fuel line 1/4 id $0.94 /ft
I did not incorporate any sort of flow restrictor into the tube.
Steve Zakreski wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
>
> I like your solution. Is there something inside the tygon tubing? Any
> problem getting the tygon to make a 90 degree bend without kinking?
>
> SteveZ
> Calgary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bill Hammond
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Sight Tube
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Bill Hammond <kitfox@itsys3.com>
>
> Steve:
>
> I had problems with the Skystar butyrate sight tubes and the
> Parker Hannefin (black) fittings also. After soliciting input
> from the list, I elected to replace them with tygon and barbed
> fittings. Since then, no leaks. There is a picture on my web
> site at http://www.itsys3.com/kitfox/discover.shtml
>
> Bill Hammond
> Parker, CO
> N913KF Kitfox Series 6
>
> Steve Zakreski wrote:
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
>>
>>I have a persistent leak in one of my sight tube fittings on my Classic
>
> 4.
>
>>My sight tube assembly supplied from Skystar is two rather unusual black
>>threaded adapters that thread into the tank, with internal O-rings that
>>accept the plastic sight tube.
>>Question: Is this still the system used by Skystar. Has someone found
>>something that works better.
>>
>>SteveZ
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison - Captain Zoom |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Hi Jeff:
That "bashing Zoom site" was very interesting reading. But I guess I was
already mostly up to speed on Zoom from all the previous years of reading
all the good and bad on him. In spite of all the ruckus he's created over
the years, generally I found most of what he wrote to be pretty accurate (I
qualify my statement by saying that I would compare his opinions to products
or subjects I had experienced myself first hand. Not what I heard from
others). I think where he got himself in so much trouble was saying it a
little too much "like it is" when he didn't feel a product measured up.
Then the battles would start.
But Zoom always liked what he experienced with the Kitfox. So his Kitfox
reports were always very positive. He pretty much felt the same about the
Avid. FWIW, he was one of the few in history willing to do an airplane to
airplane comparison of the Avid and Kitfox in a flight review. Ironically,
his review was very positive on both airplanes, anhd he admitted it was like
splitting hairs to determine which one was better. And yet, a writer
(Noland) writing for the "well regarded" Aviation Consumer magazine
concluded that neither the Avid or the Kitfox was an airplane in his
opinion. There was nothing he liked about the airplanes. So overall, in my
opinion Aviation consumer was the periodical with the least accurate
reporting. Yet they claim to be totally unbiased due to little or no
advertisers supporting them. But I guess that's why they call it freedom of
the press...
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Hays" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison -
Captain Zoom
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Hays" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
>
>
> US Aviator magazine, eh? Here's a nice complimetary article
> to go along with the one you mention.
>
> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ousterj/zoom.html
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Paul
> Seehafer
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
>
> Hi Gang:
>
> Was browsing through an old magazine article about the one-off Kitfox
> Biplane, and stumbled upon a short article about a flight test between a
> Kitfox equipped with a Continental IO-240 and a Rotax 914 in the back of
the
> same magazine. Thought it was pretty interesting. Might even help some
> trying to decide on an engine choice? So here it is word for word:
>
> "Kitfox 914 / Kitfox 240 Flight Tests" (U.S. Aviator December 1995)
>
> Recent test-flight experiences allowed us to be the first magazine
> (ahem...as usual) to compare the Continental IO-240 powered Kitfox to the
> Rotax Turbocharged 914 version. We had flown the IO-240 powered Kitfox at
> Sun-N-Fun and were surprised to see how little the extra weight impacted
the
> light handling and harmonies of the standard Model V Kitfox. Top speeds
> seen were in the 140 mph range and claimed top speeds of 150+ mph seemed
> quite reasonable from what we saw. The additional weight did give a
> slightly more ponderous feel to the "Fox" but the overall handling was
only
> modestly impacted by the heavier four-banging 125 hp Continental.
>
> However, the gang at Rotax was kind enough to fly a new Rotax 914 powered
> Kitfox to our office to show off, and despite the fact that the 914
> supposedly provides a few less horses (100 hp continuously and 115 at
> take-off, restricted to five minute intervals), the Kitfox 914 has mucho
> guts and lots of cruise speed. To make a long story short, the 914
powered
> Fox keeps up with the IO-240 in every respect and outclimbs it, to boot.
> While the IO-240 ship seems pretty settled in its way at 1200 to 1300 fpm
in
> climb (max observed), the lighter 914 powered bird easily maintains a
solid
> 1500 to 1600 fpm throughout climbs to 6500'.
>
> Top speeds are in a similar range... close to 150 mph true but 135-140 in
> cruise. What is most impressive about the 914 though, is the fact that
the
> engine is truly a product of the 1990's... rather than a WWII technology
> retread. The 914 can be equipped with a fully computer controlled
> monitoring system that will monitor critical engine parameters, actually
> keeping the engine from exceeding several of them, and keep a record of
> everything that has happened. This record can be downloaded to Rotax's
> slick little FLYDAT system and then output to any computer printer via a
> parallel cable. I saw the system in operation and I have to admit, I'm
> impressed.
>
> Now... both engines are gonna be pretty pricey... but in the case of the
> 914, I have to say that for a change, the extra cost would seem to be
worth
> it. I'll be doing a lot more research into this engine in the future, I
> promise.
>
>
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: Low Fuel Level Indicator |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Wwillyard@aol.com
Pete, I replaced my header tank with the new style just so that I could
relocate the low fuel sensor and stop the false alarms. I didn't like the added
distraction and felt that I would tend to ignore or delay a response should a
real low fuel situation arise. I definitely recommend the lower location.
William Willyard
Classic IV
Grandville, MI
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson" <aerocon1@telusplanet.net>
Just checking my PC......
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: | IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison - Captain Zoom |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Hi Paul -
Actually I have to admit the magazine was interesting reading, and
I was once a subscriber myself. I just happened to come across that
website, when I was in fact searching for US Aviator magazine.
Thought other's might find it interesting.
With regard to the content of the article about the IO-240B versus the
914, I think the 914 is a really good engine choice for the plane. My
personal choice was to buy an IO-240B, and I've never regretted it. I
seriously looked at the 914 and in fact talked to Frank Miller about
it at Sun N' Fun when I bought the plane, but at the time they
did not have a component kit for it yet.
Interesting that that other guy on the list, who doesn't like me, would
find my last post as a compelling reason to flame me again offline, but
what the heck I guess it was. :)
Jeff Hays
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Paul
Seehafer
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison -
Captain Zoom
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Hi Jeff:
That "bashing Zoom site" was very interesting reading. But I guess I was
already mostly up to speed on Zoom from all the previous years of reading
all the good and bad on him. In spite of all the ruckus he's created over
the years, generally I found most of what he wrote to be pretty accurate (I
qualify my statement by saying that I would compare his opinions to products
or subjects I had experienced myself first hand. Not what I heard from
others). I think where he got himself in so much trouble was saying it a
little too much "like it is" when he didn't feel a product measured up.
Then the battles would start.
But Zoom always liked what he experienced with the Kitfox. So his Kitfox
reports were always very positive. He pretty much felt the same about the
Avid. FWIW, he was one of the few in history willing to do an airplane to
airplane comparison of the Avid and Kitfox in a flight review. Ironically,
his review was very positive on both airplanes, anhd he admitted it was like
splitting hairs to determine which one was better. And yet, a writer
(Noland) writing for the "well regarded" Aviation Consumer magazine
concluded that neither the Avid or the Kitfox was an airplane in his
opinion. There was nothing he liked about the airplanes. So overall, in my
opinion Aviation consumer was the periodical with the least accurate
reporting. Yet they claim to be totally unbiased due to little or no
advertisers supporting them. But I guess that's why they call it freedom of
the press...
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Hays" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison -
Captain Zoom
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Hays" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
>
>
> US Aviator magazine, eh? Here's a nice complimetary article
> to go along with the one you mention.
>
> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ousterj/zoom.html
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Paul
> Seehafer
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
>
> Hi Gang:
>
> Was browsing through an old magazine article about the one-off Kitfox
> Biplane, and stumbled upon a short article about a flight test between a
> Kitfox equipped with a Continental IO-240 and a Rotax 914 in the back of
the
> same magazine. Thought it was pretty interesting. Might even help some
> trying to decide on an engine choice? So here it is word for word:
>
> "Kitfox 914 / Kitfox 240 Flight Tests" (U.S. Aviator December 1995)
>
> Recent test-flight experiences allowed us to be the first magazine
> (ahem...as usual) to compare the Continental IO-240 powered Kitfox to the
> Rotax Turbocharged 914 version. We had flown the IO-240 powered Kitfox at
> Sun-N-Fun and were surprised to see how little the extra weight impacted
the
> light handling and harmonies of the standard Model V Kitfox. Top speeds
> seen were in the 140 mph range and claimed top speeds of 150+ mph seemed
> quite reasonable from what we saw. The additional weight did give a
> slightly more ponderous feel to the "Fox" but the overall handling was
only
> modestly impacted by the heavier four-banging 125 hp Continental.
>
> However, the gang at Rotax was kind enough to fly a new Rotax 914 powered
> Kitfox to our office to show off, and despite the fact that the 914
> supposedly provides a few less horses (100 hp continuously and 115 at
> take-off, restricted to five minute intervals), the Kitfox 914 has mucho
> guts and lots of cruise speed. To make a long story short, the 914
powered
> Fox keeps up with the IO-240 in every respect and outclimbs it, to boot.
> While the IO-240 ship seems pretty settled in its way at 1200 to 1300 fpm
in
> climb (max observed), the lighter 914 powered bird easily maintains a
solid
> 1500 to 1600 fpm throughout climbs to 6500'.
>
> Top speeds are in a similar range... close to 150 mph true but 135-140 in
> cruise. What is most impressive about the 914 though, is the fact that
the
> engine is truly a product of the 1990's... rather than a WWII technology
> retread. The 914 can be equipped with a fully computer controlled
> monitoring system that will monitor critical engine parameters, actually
> keeping the engine from exceeding several of them, and keep a record of
> everything that has happened. This record can be downloaded to Rotax's
> slick little FLYDAT system and then output to any computer printer via a
> parallel cable. I saw the system in operation and I have to admit, I'm
> impressed.
>
> Now... both engines are gonna be pretty pricey... but in the case of the
> 914, I have to say that for a change, the extra cost would seem to be
worth
> it. I'll be doing a lot more research into this engine in the future, I
> promise.
>
>
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: | Re: 582 Power loss |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "david yeamans" <dafox@ckt.net>
Hello Bruce H.
I like what Don Smythe had to say about you. " If I had listened to bh
I wouldn't have spent $ 3000. on a loose nut " And he was so right in saying
that. We should listen to the one, or ones who have the experience
and knowledge, and training in the problems that we are searching an
answer to. Bob Robertson is one in particular who helped me in solving
this Power Loss problem. Steve Magdic suggested the Impulse hose,
Dale Kister thought, to much prop pitch. The more information I presented,
the more all of you zero'd in on the problem.
Bob Robertson said the first thing to do is change the Impulse hose,
like steve said, and tie the kitfox to a tree ( don't fly it !!!! ) and do a 3
minute
run up at 6000 RPM, ( simulated Ground Roll for take off where the problem always
was. ) and if that doesn't solve the problem, we'll do something about
the prop. ( He strongly felt the prop was part of the problem too ) During
the 3 minute run up, the RPM's never dropped below
5500 but fluctuated between that and 6000, back and fourth. The wind
was gusty during all this, enough to rock the wings, and give me time to
think about this PROP thing. Robertson mentioned the prop could be
stalling. I never heard of such a thing, but it did make sense. I reset the
pitch in the Prop from 21 degrees to 18 1/2 degrees and did another 3minute
run up. That was the answer. after the 7 minute warm up, I full throttle the
engine and it immediately went to 6400, I throttled back to 6200, and it stayed
there for the full 3 minutes. At that moment, I think I felt better
about my Kitfox then I had sense I first flew it. I always thought it performed
perfect, but now, it is more perfect. Needless to say,I WENT FLYING to
really give it a good test. It took off in half the distance, and the climb was
so much better and lasted a lot longer, better than ever. I'm Amazed !!!!!!!
I would say, ( Like Don Smythe said, If I had listened ) listen to
the Pro's,Like bh. and Bob Robertson, and Dale, and Steve, and Don Smythe. You'll
be glad you did, Like me !!!!!!!!
This is what Torgier said in his last message " Try re-pitching your
prop, and i think you'll have a " New " engine. HE was Right .
Thanks to all of you for your help. Sincerely,
David
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Harrington
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 582 Power loss
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Dave,
I was beginning to think the same thing.
What prop do you have, Dave?
IVOs can act this way if pitched too high.
bh
> Have checked your prop pitch. Maybe the engine is loaded too much by
> excessive propeller pitch and cannot wind up and develop full power until
> you put the nose down and pick up speed.
>
> Just a guess
> Dale Kister
> KF3/582
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: Fuel Sight Tube |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave & Wendy Grosvenor" <dwg@iafrica.com>
Has anyone tried the polyurethane tubing from ACS, p/n 0585-071. It says
it's unaffected by fuel, oil, etc and doesn't age. Is it a clear tubing? I
have emailed ACS asking them if it's clear but as usual, they don't reply to
emails.
I am using green tygon for my sight gauges but I struggle to see the fuel in
it. Previously I had made the sight gauges from clear acrylic tubing from
ACS. You could see the fuel level really nicely but they cracked before I
even got the airplane flying.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Zakreski" <szakreski@shaw.ca>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel Sight Tube
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
I like your solution. Is there something inside the tygon tubing? Any
problem getting the tygon to make a 90 degree bend without kinking?
SteveZ
Calgary
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! --
|