---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 02/29/04: 20 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:56:42 AM PST US From: "David Dawe" Subject: Kitfox-List: No emails from list? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Dawe" Broken?? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torgeir Mortensen" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 582 Power loss > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen > > 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" > > > > 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 > > > > 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" > > > > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:44:57 AM PST US From: "Clem Nichols" Subject: Kitfox-List: Facet Fuel pump on NSI Subaru EA 81 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:11:17 AM PST US From: Steve Zakreski Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Facet Fuel pump on NSI Subaru EA 81 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:21:50 AM PST US From: Steve Zakreski Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel Sight Tube --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:40:51 AM PST US From: "Jeff Hays" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison - Captain Zoom --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Hays" 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:50:26 AM PST US From: Steve Zakreski Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Facet Fuel pump on NSI Subaru EA 81 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski 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 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:49:02 AM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Sight Tube --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" 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" Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel Sight Tube > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:21:01 AM PST US From: "Don Pearsall" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: No emails from list? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:40:05 AM PST US From: Steve Zakreski Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel Sight Tube --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski 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" 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" Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel Sight Tube > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:41:10 AM PST US From: "JMCBEAN" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel Sight Tube --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "JMCBEAN" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:44:08 AM PST US From: Steve Zakreski Zoom Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison - Captain Zoom --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski 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" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:06:07 AM PST US From: Bill Hammond Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Sight Tube --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Bill Hammond 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 > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:46:25 AM PST US From: Steve Zakreski Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel Sight Tube --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski 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 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 > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:09:50 PM PST US From: Bill Hammond Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Sight Tube --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Bill Hammond 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 > > 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 > > 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 >> >>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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:58:33 PM PST US From: "Paul Seehafer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison - Captain Zoom --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" 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" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison - Captain Zoom > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Hays" > > > 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" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:23:47 PM PST US From: Wwillyard@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:41:57 PM PST US From: "Bob Robertson" Subject: Kitfox-List: TEST --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson" Just checking my PC...... do not archive ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 08:14:58 PM PST US From: "aselia.com" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison - Captain Zoom --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "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" 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" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: IO240 vs Rotax 914 Performance comparison - Captain Zoom > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Hays" > > > 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" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:58:33 PM PST US From: "david yeamans" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 582 Power loss --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "david yeamans" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:15:54 PM PST US From: "Dave & Wendy Grosvenor" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Sight Tube --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave & Wendy Grosvenor" 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" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel Sight Tube --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski 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