Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:48 AM - Re: Question Foxers (Larry and Lisa Horne)
2. 01:00 AM - Re: Question Foxers (Larry and Lisa Horne)
3. 02:20 AM - Gap sealing WAS Question Foxers (michel)
4. 05:13 AM - Re: To drag or not to drag.......Radiator Scoops (Fred Shiple)
5. 06:07 AM - Approach speed (1.3 stall speed) (CaroleandJoeP@aol.com)
6. 06:47 AM - Re: To drag or not to drag.......Radiator Scoops (Steve Zakreski)
7. 06:52 AM - Re: Question Foxers (Lowell Fitt)
8. 06:58 AM - Re: GPS & Autopilot (Steve Zakreski)
9. 07:01 AM - Re: Question Foxers (Rick)
10. 07:04 AM - Re: Air Speed (Steve Zakreski)
11. 07:17 AM - Re: GPS & Autopilot (Rick)
12. 07:33 AM - Re: Question Foxers (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
13. 08:11 AM - Re: NSI Turbo oil breather (Rick)
14. 10:16 AM - OT humour WAS: Question Foxers (michel)
15. 10:21 AM - Re: Air Speed (Michael Gibbs)
16. 10:22 AM - Gap Sealing Tape (Scott McClintock)
17. 11:00 AM - Jim stall speed? Re: Question Foxers (Harris, Robert)
18. 11:32 AM - Important approach distance? Re: Question Foxers (Harris, Robert)
19. 12:08 PM - Re: Jim stall speed? Re: Question Foxers (Harris, Robert)
20. 02:10 PM - Aviation, gentlemen, is done in knots. (Scott McClintock)
21. 02:36 PM - Re: Used Kitfox and the DAR (Dcecil3@aol.com)
22. 03:17 PM - Re: Important approach distance? Re: Question Foxers (kurt schrader)
23. 03:22 PM - Re: Used Kitfox and the DAR (kurt schrader)
24. 03:29 PM - Re: Re: Air Speed (kurt schrader)
25. 03:57 PM - Re: Skystar (owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com)
26. 04:15 PM - Re: Approach speed (1.3 stall speed) (kurt schrader)
27. 04:26 PM - Re: Skystar (kurt schrader)
28. 05:14 PM - Re: Used Kitfox and the DAR (Dcecil3@aol.com)
29. 06:46 PM - Re: Re: Air Speed (Paul Seehafer)
30. 07:03 PM - Re: Air Speed (Paul Seehafer)
31. 07:34 PM - Re: NSI Turbo oil breather (kurt schrader)
32. 08:21 PM - Re: NSI Turbo oil breather (Rick)
33. 08:59 PM - Re: Skystar (Shane Sather)
34. 09:53 PM - Re: Re: Air Speed (kurt schrader)
35. 10:05 PM - Re: NSI Turbo oil breather (kurt schrader)
36. 10:32 PM - Re: Question Foxers (jimshumaker)
37. 10:34 PM - Re: Jim stall speed? Re: Question Foxers (jimshumaker)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Larry and Lisa Horne" <hornav8@erols.com>
Jim,
Can you expand on your gap seals? wha material did you use and its source?
Lar KF2/582
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of jimshumaker
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
Robert
1.3 is a standard short approach speed. I confirm my stall speed before
each short field approach. There can easily be 5 mph difference between
solo and dual. That would be a 7 mph difference in approach speeds. Your
approach would be within 4 mph of stall.
I wheel landed for a year or two until I sealed the gap and put Vortex
generators on the wings. Oh yeah, and logged a few hundred landings into
short fields.
Jim Shumaker
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Larry and Lisa Horne" <hornav8@erols.com>
please let me know what material and its source you use for the gap seal
thanks
lar
KF2/582
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Michel
Verheughe
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
jimshumaker wrote:
> My Kitfox III liked to hobby horse on the three point landings before I
> sealed the gap on the elevator. The elevator did not have enough power to
> pull the wing into a stall attitude that would let the tail wheel touch at
> or before the mains. By landing on the mains first, the nose pitched up
and
> the tail touched and popped the nose back down and touched the mains.
While
> shooting touch and goes the tower would clear me for bounce and goes.
Interesting reading, Jim. First I was thinking of sealing my elevator's gap.
Then I thought, why should I change a good design, built by a fine airman?
But
now you give me a good excuse to at least try gap sealing to see how it
affects
my landings.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: | Gap sealing WAS Question Foxers |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel <michel@online.no>
>===== Original Message From "Larry and Lisa Horne" <hornav8@erols.com>
>please let me know what material and its source you use for the gap seal
Well, so far I did only a test but it was so cold in the hangar, I didn't do a
good job and I'll try again soon, in better conditions.
It is a transparent 3M 2-inches wide tape which I glued together like this:
--------------------------- glue side down
------------------------- glue side up
The overlapping is about one inch so that the total lenght is three inches. I
then hold the elevator in the up position by latching it with the safety belt.
I insert the tape in the gap, press it down first on the stab topside, then on
the elevator's underside. It takes a bit of skill to get it nice. Working in
sub-zero condition was no good for me. Wait for a sunny day! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: To drag or not to drag.......Radiator Scoops |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Jeff,
The EAA's Sport Aviation, Jan2004 (p.34) issue has a thorough article on radiator
and scoop design and installation, if no one has pointed it out yet.
Fred
Jeff,
There definitely must be something holding you
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: | Approach speed (1.3 stall speed) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: CaroleandJoeP@aol.com
Hi,
I'm just a spam-can pilot (kitfox wannabe) lurking on the list, so this may
be complete rubbish, but..... Lots of planes have airspeed indicators which
REALY under-read at stall speeds, (my 152 can be flown almost at 0 indicated
before it will stall)
Therefore to find a realistic approach speed the indicated stall speed must
first be converted to calibrated speed, multiplied by 1.3, then converted back
to indicated speed. Thus removing the error.
My POH has tables which give the correction numbers. I've no idea what they
are for a kitfox, but I'm sure this method will give a truer 1.3 target speed
than simply multiplying indicated speed.
This list is a great kitfox education for a prospective builder, many thanks.
Joe Platt
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: | To drag or not to drag.......Radiator Scoops |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
I mis-spoke earlier. I meant to imply I get 100 mph, not 100 knots with my
IV/NSI/CAP. I can push it to about 105 mph. That is similar to what others
are getting in this configuration.
SteveZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jeff
Smathers
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: To drag or not to drag.......Radiator Scoops
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jeff Smathers <jsmathers@cybcon.com>
Hi Steve,
I have my lift struts faired and I am only getting 75-80 Kts with my
100 hp and variable pitch NSI prop....
Jeff Smathers
Steve Zakreski wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
>
> Kurt, the wing strut fairings alone will get you to 100 knots. They make
a
> BIG difference on Kitfoxes flying in that speed range.
>
> SteveZ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of kurt
> schrader
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: To drag or not to drag.......Radiator Scoops
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> You are just a little ahead of me on this. I am
> roughing out a scoop for my S-5 radiator right now,
> but it will be at least a month before I can fly it
> again and post results. Too many irons in th fire
> right now.
>
> Some have had no noticable speed gain from their
> radiator scoops. I think it is because there is no
> extention of the scoop behind their radiators leaving
> that rear air still disturbed. I would think that you
> should get 5-10 kts from a good scoop design and
> better cooling in flight, but I haven't done the math
> or tested it yet. The thing is just a big speed brake
> down there now and the air would rather go around it
> in a big wave than thru it. It rates about 1 sq ft of
> flat plate area, but more due to the fuselage
> interference above.
>
> My radiator hangs entirely below the cowl. Yours
> might be half covered by the rear cowl area and not be
> as draggy. Results may vary.
>
> Right now my S-5 cruises at about 80 knots at 6 gph
> and tops out at 95 kts. With scoop, wing strut
> fairings and other smaller fairings, I hope to see 100
> kts (115 mph) at 6 gph. It's a goal...
>
> Kurt S.
>
> --- Jeff Smathers <jsmathers@cybcon.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > What is the approximate speed consequence of leaving
> > my Kitfox 5
> > water radiator 6" x 24" x 5" for my NSI Subaru
> > EA-81 out in the
> > slip stream uncowled? Right now I am getting about
> > 75-80 kts at cruise, and was expecting more.....
> >
> > I figured about 5 - 7 Hp is being consumed with an
> > estimated drag
> > coeffecient of 1.3 to 1.5 at 75kts. am I close?
> >
> > I know some of you have cowled yours in.
> >
> > Thanks, Jeff Smathers
>
> __________________________________
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
>
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: Question Foxers |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Steve, I can't help wondering if the re worked CG calculations will
include re-weighing the airplane with particular attention to measuring the
arms etc. I am afraid that to just re-calculate using the weight
differences with new engine vs. old, for example, will ignore the possible
difference between the engine CGs.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Cooper" <spdrflyr@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" <spdrflyr@earthlink.net>
>
> Thank you Kurt for a very comprehensive analysis of my problem. I really
> appreciate all the help you guys have offered. I plan on attacking this
> issue and solving it. I will let you know how things go over the next week
> or so. The first thing I'm going to do is re-check my CG calculations and
go
> from there. We'll see what happens! :)
>
> Steve
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "kurt schrader" <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
> >
> > Ok Vic. You made me do it. :-)
> >
> > Steve, I think I hear several problems here rather
> > than just one. First, Vic is right. Check that CG
> > and plan a load out to put it right in the middle of
> > your range. Do a work sheet so you know right where
> > it really is. If full cargo does not move it into the
> > middle with full tanks and two aboard, you are really
> > nose heavy. A full plane should have you close to the
> > rear limit. Testing with you, full fuel and cargo
> > should be about in the middle to a little aft of
> > middle. Check it.
> >
> > If you are nose heavy with a normal load and not near
> > the aft limit with a full load, plan later to move
> > required stuff aft, like the battery. Only add dead
> > weight to the tail as a last resort. A few pounds in
> > the tail make a big difference. You can go right past
> > good to worse - tail heavy.
> >
> > Next, I agree with the "flare too high" conclusion.
> > You should arrive at the stall within 6" of the runway
> > or less if you can. It always seems otherwise, but
> > that is best accomplished by looking way out at the
> > world and not at the runway nearby. Looking too close
> > is called "spotting the runway" and makes for worse
> > landings. With practice, you know how high you are
> > just as if it was your butt and not the wheels sliding
> > over the runway. Doesn't matter how big or small the
> > plane is, it feels the same. You get the right
> > feeling when you taxi out. Remember that height.
> > Look at the whole world from that height. Hold it off
> > right at 6" above that to land. It can't fall enough
> > to bounce much then. If you hold it off to the stall,
> > it can't pitch over because it is too close, and it
> > won't leave the ground again because it is stalled.
> > No teeth clenching falls and bounces.
> >
> > It is amazing how we can return right to the correct
> > height when watching the world come up to us. If you
> > go outside and stand looking at the world, then climb
> > one step while still looking, you can really see the
> > difference. Same when you step back down. You know
> > that is "your" height. Our caveman brains seem to
> > think it is important to know.
> >
> > Third, I am wondering about your indicated stall
> > speed. At 55 you shouldn't feel like you are on the
> > edge, unless you are heavy. Several possible problems
> > here. Inaccurate ASI/static pressure. A poor wing
> > leading edge giving you a poor stall. Nose heavy and
> > not enough elevator.
> >
> > I suggest you go up high and do some stalls to
> > establish your real stall speed. Do the pattern at
> > 1.5 times that and the final approach at 1.3 times
> > that. Trim to all speeds, but not in the flare or
> > after. Trimming and scanning will keep you on speed.
> >
> > Add the gap seal. It can't hurt, unless you add a
> > poor one and something gets trapped in it causing a
> > jam. With this design, that is unlikely, except in
> > winter.
> >
> > So, CG, landing height, approach and stall speed, and
> > gap seal. :-) That should fix it Steve, or sour my
> > reputation with Vic.
> >
> > Now if you really want to be consistantly good, get
> > that AOA indicator too. Once that is programmed to
> > your plane, you only have to watch the lights when
> > flying and hold the 6" flare to land.
> >
> > Kurt S.
> >
> > --- Vic Jacko <vicwj@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Steve, I sure sounds like you have a huge case of
> > > nose heaviness. The
> > > speeds of your approach and touchdown is indicative
> > > of this problem.
> > >
> > > .......
> > > I hope Kurt S is reading this and adds to the
> > > comments as I learned a lot from him in this area.
> > >
> > > Keep us advised as to your progress..
> >
> > > Vic
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
I've been using the Anywhere Map GPS/iPaq for almost 3 years. It is an
outstanding value. It has been my main navigation device on many 1000 mile
plus Kitfox trips, and I'd feel helpless without it. If you are thinking
about it, make sure you check out the tour on
http://www.anywheremap.com/pages/awm_tour.htm
Now having said all that wonderful stuff, I'll admit I am now looking at a
Garmin 296 which has similar capabilities at twice the price.
SteveZ
Calgary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Clifford
Begnaud
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GPS & Autopilot
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
<shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Michel,
Thanks for the input. I thought about that, just going with an inexpensive
gps. Any gps will guide the way if you know the coordinates of the
destination but I want all the bells and whistles of a dedicated Aviation
GPS. Right now I'm leaning toward buying the 296 now, then saving up for an
autopilot. But I would really like hear comments on the Anywhere map and
the Digitrak autopilot.
Thanks,
Cliff
do not archive
>
> Hello Cliff,
>
> I bought a very simple and very cheap Garmin GPS72 because it has a rather
> large wind rose as head-up display. At 56, I also need glasses and I like
large
> displays. But there is more to it.
>
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: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
Here is a thought. I have now had one car done and have done one car with
the 3M product used by Invicta shield. It is for paint protection and is
clear. You apply with a water soap solution. Widths can be ordered. When I
replace the ski save stuff I am going to try this.
Rick
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: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
I sent a correction to my previous note to Kurt. I cruise at 100 mph (not
knots) TAS from my GPS. We both have NSI's.
SteveZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Burke
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Air Speed
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Burke <jeburke94je@direcway.com>
I have been reading a lot of e-mail about airspeed and I was curious, Are
you talking about indicated airspeed,true airspeed or actual ground speed
from your GPS? My KF IV-1200 cruises at 80 mph indicated @ 5400 rpm with a
582. 90mph indicated @ 5800rpm.
James E. Burke
(N94JE)
-------Original Message-------
From: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: To drag or not to drag.......Radiator Scoops
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
Kurt, the wing strut fairings alone will get you to 100 knots. They make a
BIG difference on Kitfoxes flying in that speed range.
SteveZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of kurt
schrader
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: To drag or not to drag.......Radiator Scoops
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi Jeff,
You are just a little ahead of me on this. I am
roughing out a scoop for my S-5 radiator right now,
but it will be at least a month before I can fly it
again and post results. Too many irons in th fire
right now.
Some have had no noticable speed gain from their
radiator scoops. I think it is because there is no
extention of the scoop behind their radiators leaving
that rear air still disturbed. I would think that you
should get 5-10 kts from a good scoop design and
better cooling in flight, but I haven't done the math
or tested it yet. The thing is just a big speed brake
down there now and the air would rather go around it
in a big wave than thru it. It rates about 1 sq ft of
flat plate area, but more due to the fuselage
interference above.
My radiator hangs entirely below the cowl. Yours
might be half covered by the rear cowl area and not be
as draggy. Results may vary.
Right now my S-5 cruises at about 80 knots at 6 gph
and tops out at 95 kts. With scoop, wing strut
fairings and other smaller fairings, I hope to see 100
kts (115 mph) at 6 gph. It's a goal...
Kurt S.
--- Jeff Smathers <jsmathers@cybcon.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> What is the approximate speed consequence of leaving
> my Kitfox 5
> water radiator 6" x 24" x 5" for my NSI Subaru
> EA-81 out in the
> slip stream uncowled? Right now I am getting about
> 75-80 kts at cruise, and was expecting more.....
>
> I figured about 5 - 7 Hp is being consumed with an
> estimated drag
> coeffecient of 1.3 to 1.5 at 75kts. am I close?
>
> I know some of you have cowled yours in.
>
> Thanks, Jeff Smathers
__________________________________
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
Have you seen the new 295.....will it never end, I need to retire soon. :)
296 user.
Rick
-----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: GPS & Autopilot
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
I've been using the Anywhere Map GPS/iPaq for almost 3 years. It is an
outstanding value. It has been my main navigation device on many 1000 mile
plus Kitfox trips, and I'd feel helpless without it. If you are thinking
about it, make sure you check out the tour on
http://www.anywheremap.com/pages/awm_tour.htm
Now having said all that wonderful stuff, I'll admit I am now looking at a
Garmin 296 which has similar capabilities at twice the price.
SteveZ
Calgary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Clifford
Begnaud
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GPS & Autopilot
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
<shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Michel,
Thanks for the input. I thought about that, just going with an inexpensive
gps. Any gps will guide the way if you know the coordinates of the
destination but I want all the bells and whistles of a dedicated Aviation
GPS. Right now I'm leaning toward buying the 296 now, then saving up for an
autopilot. But I would really like hear comments on the Anywhere map and
the Digitrak autopilot.
Thanks,
Cliff
do not archive
>
> Hello Cliff,
>
> I bought a very simple and very cheap Garmin GPS72 because it has a rather
> large wind rose as head-up display. At 56, I also need glasses and I like
large
> displays. But there is more to it.
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
clear adhesive-backed shelf liner from a home and garden store. approximately 1"
strips, overlapped and stuck to each other by 1/2" then apply top of stabilizer
trailing edge to bottom of elevator leading edge. cut length to fit between
the hinges with space to verify cotter pins.
been in place nearly 8 years with no deterioration or discoloring.
cost $1.50
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Larry and Lisa Horne" <hornav8@erols.com>
>
> please let me know what material and its source you use for the gap seal
>
> thanks
>
> lar
> KF2/582
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Michel
> Verheughe
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> jimshumaker wrote:
> > My Kitfox III liked to hobby horse on the three point landings before I
> > sealed the gap on the elevator. The elevator did not have enough power to
> > pull the wing into a stall attitude that would let the tail wheel touch at
> > or before the mains. By landing on the mains first, the nose pitched up
> and
> > the tail touched and popped the nose back down and touched the mains.
> While
> > shooting touch and goes the tower would clear me for bounce and goes.
>
> Interesting reading, Jim. First I was thinking of sealing my elevator's gap.
> Then I thought, why should I change a good design, built by a fine airman?
> But
> now you give me a good excuse to at least try gap sealing to see how it
> affects
> my landings.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | NSI Turbo oil breather |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of kurt
schrader
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: NSI Turbo oil breather
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Rick,
I am trying to get a handle on just where the back
pressure comes from that causes the burping. My
Chilton's Auto book really doesn't cover oil flow that
well, or I am missing the point.
I was told by another pilot that the valve cover lines
are the only oil returns to the pan, but that doesn't
seem right.
Don't think he has an NSI then.
They come off the top of the valve
covers, not the bottom. This would fill the valve
covers with incompressable oil driving the oil up the
lines pretty hard, or restrict valve movement. There
should be other oil drains to the pan, like around the
valve push rods to the camshaft and down. Also, mine
doesn't burp if kept a quart low, so pan oil height
makes a difference.
The oil does drains from the rocker boxes down past the push rods to the
pan. The return from the turbo feeds into the head by the number to 3
cylinder, I think, but still into the head and down the same push rod holes
to the pan. Check you vent return line with the oil pan at the proper level.
If oil runs out of the pan there is no way oil can return from the return
line. May be your oil level is to high. What are you basing your quantity
required on? When it is cold and you climb the oil is forced back against
the drain hole. If it backs up too much ,bam burp. If your saying it does it
on start up then there is just to much oil in the pan and no matter where
you put the return it wont matter.
I expected the valve cover air pressure coming out of
the hoses would vent out the seperator/filter, while
the residual oil was supposed to drain down the larger
line to the pan. But I have burped half a quart in
one shot. Either there is more oil coming thru the
hoses than can drain down fast enough, or there is
back pressure on that drain line pushing oil up. I
expect it is pressure from below, but I could be
wrong. My assumption is that the air can not escape
fast enough out those hoses and pressure is vented
down the valve pushrod tubes to the pan driving oil up
the drain line and out the vent.
Again I think your right about the oil being forced up the vent line from
the crankcase pressure. Could be you have excessive blow by / excessive
crank case pressure. There is a way to measure it. Could be caused by worn
rings or other things.
The solution depends upon the source of the oil back
pressure. If the valve cover lines went directly to
the pan and the pan were vented, it should work, but
there could be a lot of foaming. These lines would
have to empty above the oil level to avoid foaming.
The pan would have to be vented above the oil level
too, which is above the pan's top edge. This is why I
thought of the dipstick hole. Vent the pressure off
the pan too. Unfortunately there are webs in the
engine structure underneath that may trap the air in
several pockets and drive oil up this hole and the
rear hose as well, but the dipstick never pops out due
to excess pressure?
Interesting point,. You would think as loose as that stick is it would surly
pop out wouldn't you.
Other solutions: Larger air/oil seperator that can
contain and drain back a quart?
Good idea.
Check valves in the
oil lines, if that is the source of oil?
Not a good idea. It doesn't know the difference between oil and air.
Long hose
out the tail and just let the oil level blow out and
run a little low like LYC's and Cont's do? I am of
the mindset that likes to contain the oil and not blow
it away.
Yep keep the oil, besides if not set up right all the oil could get sucked
out...bad thing.
The origional Soob design sucked it into the intake
thru the PVC valve, but not a good idea unless you
draw it in before the turbo.
Yep, I don't like and that is only good at idle anyway before the PVC valve
closes.
Take a look at my set up. Seemed to be working before the valve let go. Very
little oil in the recovery bottle. New engine still in the works.
Kurt S.
--- Rick <turboflyer@comcast.net> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick"
> <turboflyer@comcast.net>
>
> Kurt I am pretty tired but I just thought of a few
> things. You crank case is
> vented through both valve covers. The line to the
> pan is a return for any,
> most mist. The line to the pan is not the vent. I
> will check but I think I
> put a post of my setup somewhat borrowed from Tom. I
> moved the returns to
> the side but that really didn't solve the problem of
> the return oil. I am
> back to the rear return. My new pan is custom built
> .090 and holds an extra
> quart, not that makes a difference on the breather
> return.
>
> Rick
__________________________________
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: | OT humour WAS: Question Foxers |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel <michel@online.no>
>===== Original Message From kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com> =====
>At 55 you shouldn't feel like you are on the
>edge, unless you are heavy.
... I am 56, I don't feel on the edge and I am certainly not heavy!
... Ok, I'll shut up ... just couldn't resist it ... sorry! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Paul sez:
>I also would suggest we all keep it to miles per hour (verses
>knots)...A general rule for aviation should be "we don't talk about
>knots unless the thing flys at least 200 mph".
Aviation, gentlemen, is done in knots. Air traffic controllers speak
knots, flight plans are done in knots, navigation equipment like DME
do knots. Statute miles are for landlubbers. :-)
The only faction in aviation that seems enamored with MPH is
home-builders. Too bad, too, because it makes us look as though we
have an inferiority complex.
Mike G.
P.S. Michel, despite some brave attempts back in the 1970s, the U.S.
going metric is just a pipe dream these days...
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: | Gap Sealing Tape |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock <scott_mcclintock@dot.state.ak.us>
These guys have a good selection of any kind of tape you could imagine.
Any color and clear in a variety of widths of course.
http://belldiversified.com/tapes.html
Scott in Nome
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: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Hi Jim,
When you confirm your stall speed do you actually do a stall at high
altitude?
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jimshumaker
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
Robert
1.3 is a standard short approach speed. I confirm my stall speed before
each short field approach. There can easily be 5 mph difference between
solo and dual. That would be a 7 mph difference in approach speeds. Your
approach would be within 4 mph of stall.
I wheel landed for a year or two until I sealed the gap and put Vortex
generators on the wings. Oh yeah, and logged a few hundred landings into
short fields.
Jim Shumaker
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Hi Kurt,
Approximately how many feet back from my desired touch down spot and how
high should be when I start flying at the approach speed?
Robert
PS Thanks for the excellent information. I'm looking forward to trying it.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt schrader
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi Robert,
Well, not margin for error, but desired approach speed
is 1.3 x stall speed before the flare. I started my
testing with approaches at 65, then 60. Landings were
not good. Floats and bounces. Once I had established
my stall at initial test weight as 40 indicated, I did
my approaches at 52 and the landings were much better.
The plane sat right down after a short flare and
didn't try to fly again. I used 1/2 the runway.
Best proceedure is to go up high and clear your
airspace. Then do a stall hawking the speed, keeping
the verticle speed level, and the ball in the middle.
Recover right at the break. Clear the space again and
do another to confirm the stall speed.
When you return to land, use the 1.3 times the stall
speed for the final and trim right to it. The
landings will be as predicticable as your speed
control allows.
Of course that only applies to that current weight.
This is where an AOA system really helps. You can set
your AOA system for the stall speed +5 as a warning
and to the stall speed + 1.3 times stall for the
approach. Then it will always "do the math" for you
whatever the weight and you will always get consistant
landings. You can just about forget the airspeed for
anything except bragging rights. Navigate by GPS GS,
fly desired fuel flow, and approach and land by AOA.
Kurt S.
--- "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com> wrote:
> Is the 1.3 multiplier a standard margin of error?
> This weekend was the first
> time I flew my 515lbs model II Kitfox. I wondered
> what my flare should be
>
> Robert
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Hi Jim,
Kurt answered this for me earlier and he said that one should do two stalls
and recover just prior to the break.
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Harris, Robert
Subject: Jim stall speed? RE: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert"
<Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Hi Jim,
When you confirm your stall speed do you actually do a stall at high
altitude?
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jimshumaker
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
Robert
1.3 is a standard short approach speed. I confirm my stall speed before
each short field approach. There can easily be 5 mph difference between
solo and dual. That would be a 7 mph difference in approach speeds. Your
approach would be within 4 mph of stall.
I wheel landed for a year or two until I sealed the gap and put Vortex
generators on the wings. Oh yeah, and logged a few hundred landings into
short fields.
Jim Shumaker
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: | Aviation, gentlemen, is done in knots. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock <scott_mcclintock@dot.state.ak.us>
Mike,
I couldn't agree w/ you more. If your A/S indicator is expressed in MPH
(like mine was) it's a pretty good idea to tab that thing out for knots
too. I have found this to be real handy at times. It makes my
calculations much simpler. Why go thru an extra step and possible error
when flight planning, for instance.
If you want a cross check, set your GPS to read MPH, I do.
Besides, didn't we all learn in KNOTS?
Scott in Nome
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Used Kitfox and the DAR |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dcecil3@aol.com
Got My answer from FISDO last night.Seems that , when the plane was
deregistered The Airworthiness certificate was not turned in. I'm thinking this
was
done by the Insurance Co.It should have been sent to Oklahoma but somehow it
didn't get done, so now the paper chase starts.I do have the name and Phone # of
the guy that built the plane and he's helping me all he can. if he can find out
what happen to the AWC and send it to me I can do it as a rebuild.If the
Insurance CO. destroyed it I can get them to send a Letter to Oklahoma to that
affect.I can then build the plane as a start from scratch"Kit" but if I can't
Locate the AWC I have a Hunk of Kitfox Parts that are Worthless
D Cecil
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Question Foxers |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Robert,
I think the formula in feet is to add 2 zeros to your
age... 23 = 2,300' horizontal and 56 = 5,600'
horizontal. :-) A 3 degree glideslope is 300'/mile,
but many old pilots plan for an engine out approach
every time, which is steeper and depends upon flap
position.
OK, I just made that first part up. There is no
formula for distance. But we little guys should not
fly long finals. Well less than one mile final is
good form, IMHO. That gives you one minute or less to
set up, or goof it up.... :-)
It really depends upon how quickly you can trim to the
speed so that the plane will hold approach speed
"hands off" while you scan for landing. I believe in
trimming. Learned it the hard way by almost stalling
a C-150 on final many years ago practicing for my
private license. Just caught it in time. I was at
full power, on the edge of stall right to touchdown.
Just barely got to the edge of the runway and hit on
the tail tiedown first. Always trimmed after that.
Trimming is a key feature to good landings. If the
plane naturally wants to hold the right speed, you can
just lightly guide it. Any control weight tells you
that you are at the wrong speed. That way you can
feel the plane and look more outside to land. If you
are out of trim, the plane and you are fighting and
you have to scan inside more to keep on speed.
Out of trim is a good way to do an approach turn stall
too. The 1.3 times approach speed is not for speed
error, as I said earlier. It is for a trimmed plane
on approach to get the flare and landing done right
without much floating. STOL landings will be at a
slower speed .... and faster scan.
If you trim for each speed, you would have to pull or
push to get an error (unless there are gusts). Glide
path should be adjusted more with throttle.
A common error is to be underpowered and hold the
glide path with elevator (like I did that first time).
You decellerate into a stall not feeling it until too
late because you are used to pulling on the heavy
stick anyway. Instead when trimmed, you apply power
to hold the glide path and keep the stick forces
light. You know right away when you are fast or slow
because the controls are no longer light. You adjust
power to make them light again. That is on speed and
path.
So properly speaking, as soon as you turn final, lock
onto the centerline, set and trim to approach speed,
maintain your path as necessary, and don't lose the
centerline or speed. Just like keeping the little
wheel in back, quick action and a good scan will keep
you from deviating on lineup, angle, or speed. How
long a distance that takes you depends upon practice.
Start out long at first until you get it down. Soon
you will do it naturally in seconds.
Caviots:
1. Some guys here have so much experience a 300' long
final and no trimming on final is great. They may
trim on downwind or base instead. But they have the
feel for the plane right first.
2. The KF's with flapperon trim make it hard for you
to trim and use flaps. :-( I suppose you can trim
for approach, then apply flaps and elevator near the
threshold to land. Keeps you away from stall speeds
and heavy controls until almost down.
Learning to do slow flight at altitude, holding right
on the edge of stall, climbing, descending, turning,
etc is very good practice. Gives you the feel....
So much for theory. Let's hear from those who have
flown KF's for a long time and are short field
experts. Different trim systems, different
techniques, different experiences....
Kurt S.
--- "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com> wrote:
> Hi Kurt,
>
> Approximately how many feet back from my desired
> touch down spot and how high should be when I start
> flying at the approach speed?
>
> Robert
__________________________________
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Used Kitfox and the DAR |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
There is reality and then there is paperwork. The
government goes by paperwork. Luckily the Wright
Bro's kept it a secret, or we would still be
walking...
Kurt S.
--- Dcecil3@aol.com wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dcecil3@aol.com
>
> Got My answer from FISDO last night.Seems that ,
> when the plane was
> deregistered The Airworthiness certificate was not
> turned in.
__________________________________
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
If we could only get the Wx people to always report in
knots... Visibility? Windspeed?
I am not biased, just old. I just gave up and put a
knots meter in my plane because that is the most
common to navigate by. I'll be glad to report in
both, if that keeps the peace.
Kurt S.
Do not archive
__________________________________
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by:
Ive just recibed a new wing and some other items two
weeks ago, as I had a hard ground loop in my Classic
IV. Dave Morris and Crystal, from SkyStar were always
helpful. They sent all on time and I recibed a great
service. Im glad with SS.
Francisco Icaza
Classic IV in Mexico.
--- Steve Cooper <spdrflyr@earthlink.net> escribi: >
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper"
> <spdrflyr@earthlink.net>
>
> Hi Foxers,
>
> I am in the process of adapting the Series 5 Spring
> Aluminum gear for my
> Avid Mark IV/Jabiru. I called Grove (man, is that
> boy in need of a major
> attitude adjustment or what?) Got nowhere. I called
> Skystar after listening
> to Grove ...Boy!, was I plesently surprised! They
> are too cool! I don't
> even own a Fox and they fell all over themselves to
> help. Anyway, to make a
> long story short, I got the information I needed and
> Skystar really went out
> of their way to help.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/chat
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
La mejor conexin a internet y 25MB extra a tu correo por $100 al mes. http://net.yahoo.com.mx
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Approach speed (1.3 stall speed) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Joe,
You are right of course. 1.3 times zero would hardly
be useful. :-) And we don't go to Baskin Robbins and
order icecream.
We get a little lazy about it I suppose, because our
airspeed indicators are usually not that far off at
the low end. I don't know of any KitFox plane that
reads a zero stall, even with our crude pitot systems.
Are there any out there???
But it certainly is possible to read a 32 mph stall
and learn that the 1.3 times, or 42 mph approach is
really only 38 mph. Or more likely that 28 indicated
is really 35, and 36 indicated for approach is really
40 mph, still a much closer real margin between them.
For the heavier Foxes, 40 could be 50 etc. In any
case, the desired margins between approach and stall
may not really be as indicated.
So Joe has a safety point.
The good news is that we homebuilders get to test our
own planes and can learn, if we want, what is real.
Maybe that is why we can feel more secure and have
few, if any, zero speed stalls? Better low-end ASI's
help too.
I bought Elbie's "Rite Angle AOA System" and I always
know (if I pay attention) the right speed because it
is always the same angle. Doesn''t matter what the
ASI says. But now you can install one on your Cessna
too, and forget the zero reading. That is the safest
approach IMHO.
Kurt S.
-- CaroleandJoeP@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm just a spam-can pilot (kitfox wannabe) lurking
> on the list, so this may
> be complete rubbish, but..... Lots of planes have
> airspeed indicators which
> REALY under-read at stall speeds, (my 152 can be
> flown almost at 0 indicated
> before it will stall)....
>
> Joe Platt
__________________________________
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Francisco,
Glad you are OK and it was just wing damage.
Kurt S. Snowing in KY today!
--- owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com wrote:
> Ive just received a new wing and some other items
two
> weeks ago, as I had a hard ground loop in my Classic
> IV. Dave Morris and Crystal, from SkyStar were
always
> helpful. They sent all on time and I recibed a great
> service. Im glad with SS.
>
> Francisco Icaza
> Classic IV in Mexico.
__________________________________
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Used Kitfox and the DAR |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dcecil3@aol.com
Ok guys
Once again "IT aint over till it's OVER".Found out why I can't find the
Airworthiness on this kitfox . Correct me if I'm wrong , but this Plane has 5.8
Hrs. on the Hobbs In other words it was never issued a Certificate .The only
record would be the registration and the provisional Certificate issued by the
DAR ? Which was just a notation in the aircraft logbook? You guys have been
through the process, are these statements true? IF so..... New Ball Game .Need
all
the Feedback you can give Please!!!!!!!!
David Cecil
KF? 950 (Unless I have to call
it a Cecil)
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Mike:
My Certified 1964 vintage Lake Amphibian I fly came right from the factory
with airspeed in miles per hour (doesn't even have knots listed as an
optional ring to read). So apparently someone from the FAA must've
preferred miles per hour over knots?
I think knots should be used on a ship. And not just to tie it to the dock.
After all, why should us aviators have to refer to "Nautical" miles? (fwiw -
Websters Dictionary refers to a nautical mile as a Sea mile). But then
again, there are Pilots that refer to themselves as "Captains", and there
are Captains that refer to themselves as "Pilots". So does anyone really
know what's going on here? (I fly a FLYING BOAT. So am I a captain or a
pilot? Or both?)
I could maybe understand the seaplane guys being into knots? But because
our airplanes are extremely draggy (read as SLOW), we feel better when we
say we cruise (fast) at 115, rather than a (slow) 100. And if we ever all
agree to one or the other speed to use, then we won't be able to convert to
the highest number when it is to our advantage (like around the campfire
after a few beers). That would certainly take the fun out of things.
Hey! Maybe we should be famous and create our very own "Aviator Speed"?
Let's make it hard for everyone to figure out what we are talking about!
Oh, that's right. Been done already. They call it "Mach numbers". Darn!
Anyone know what I can expect for a mach number for my Model IV on floats?
(Hint: I'm hoping it will go 100 mph, [ahem] 87 knots.) Think I should
build a calculator into my panel just in case the FAA decides to implement
this?
Heck, while we're at it, let's see if we can make it a little harder to
understand those aviation weather charts! We all know how to read those
like expert weathermen, right? Aviation weather related accidents prove we
all understand weather incredibly well...
Just because the government says it is the way we should do things, doesn't
mean it makes sense, or is the best way to do it.
All in fun! :-)
Paul Seehafer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gibbs" <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Air Speed
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Paul sez:
>
> >I also would suggest we all keep it to miles per hour (verses
> >knots)...A general rule for aviation should be "we don't talk about
> >knots unless the thing flys at least 200 mph".
>
> Aviation, gentlemen, is done in knots. Air traffic controllers speak
> knots, flight plans are done in knots, navigation equipment like DME
> do knots. Statute miles are for landlubbers. :-)
>
> The only faction in aviation that seems enamored with MPH is
> home-builders. Too bad, too, because it makes us look as though we
> have an inferiority complex.
>
> Mike G.
>
> P.S. Michel, despite some brave attempts back in the 1970s, the U.S.
> going metric is just a pipe dream these days...
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Michel:
You'll have to read my other post I just finished on this subject (it posted
elsewhere). I'm going to skip the whole miles per hour and knots debate
altogether. I've decided to post my numbers from this point forward in mach
numbers.
:-)
Paul Seehafer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Air Speed
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> Paul Seehafer wrote:
> > I also would suggest we all keep it to miles per hour (verses knots).
> > Otherwise we are always having to convert. A general rule for aviation
> > should be "we don't talk about knots unless the thing flys at least 200
> > mph". Keeps life simple. (plus, its more fun to talk about higher
numbers
> > when our airplanes are so slow to start with...)
>
> If you like high numbers, how about km/h, Paul? :-)
> I believe the US has gone metric, isn't it? Time Magazine, at least, is
only
> writing metric. So, let's call it km/h, m/s (VVI) and hectoPascal for
pressure.
> The knot is interesting, but only when one talks about nautical miles.
Which is
> interesting if one does navigation with a chart that has the latitude
scale on
> a side. In the days of GPS, it has lost a bit of its charm.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | NSI Turbo oil breather |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Thanks for all the thought work Rick,
I am learning a lot about this engine, which makes
decisions better.
Just a few answers, then some things learned and ideas
to consider.
I origionally set my oil level based upon the
dipstick, but had to remark it to show the full level
as a taildragger. This turned out to be still too
high due to the return line position. I tested for
levels using a remote breather in the cockpit and
added a cup at a time watching for burping until I
could at least read the level on the dipstick. That
is working, but I am venting the engine only thru a
5/16th line. Not very good as a breather.
The return line is almost as high up in the back of
the pan as it can get, but at least 2 of 4 qts need to
be removed from the pan to fully uncover it in the 3
point position. In a climb, it is even worse. that
level is too low.
Origionally I had no trouble doing ground checks with
an adjusted "full" pan in the 3 point position. The
first problem showed up when I ran up to higher power
on a slanted ramp to simulate takeoff. Big burp! I
made a catch system much like yours and it did ok
until my 3rd or 4th flight. BIG burp on takeoff. It
even blew out of the 11 oz catch cup. Lost over 1/2
qt in a 12 minute engine run & flight. Maybe 5
minutes of actual flight? Since then I used the
remote cockpit mounted breather to establish a safe
level. That is at the very bottom of the dipstick.
It is also still above the return line port. I expect
that more trouble looms.
I read my Chilton's a bit more and studied the engine
directly. Talked to another soob guy and read your
reply too. I found the major air and oil flows and
now understand that much better.
Venting out the valve covers is sufficient and there
doesn't need to be any venting out the pan at all. It
relieves up the pushrod holes just fine.
Today I bought a large PVC valve that can be installed
in the return line. Pressure should be relieved out
the valve covers, not out the return line. With a PVC
valve in the return line, short blasts of blowby
shouldn't blow more than a spit of oil up, then drain
down just fine. Pressure should leave the valve
covers just fine. That is mostly a good solution and
a "full" oilpan should be no problem.
Then Clare Snyder over on the Soob site had a really
good suggestion. Cap off the pan return. Have 2
seperate breathers, one above each valve cover, that
drain right back to the heads. He uses larger hoses
off the valve covers so that the air can get out and
the oil can drain right back unimpeeded. There
shouldn't be that much oil anyway. I think his system
will not have any losses to speak of, unless you pull
negative "G's". And it can be lighter.
He used hydraulic tank vents at the end of 3-4" hoses.
The hoses are stuffed with stainless steel pot
scrubber and a screen is at the bottom to keep it from
falling into the valve cover area. (That screen
better be mounted well) Nothing much to it.
What do you think?
Gotta get ready to leave for Florida tomorrow.
Kurt S.
__________________________________
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | NSI Turbo oil breather |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
Interesting. Well seems you are dialing it in. Did you ask Lance why he
didn't just use a breather on each valve cover? I think I would have some
size of filter if the run is going to be that short, but the SS when wet
with oil should do fine. I didn't realize you had an old fashion airplane
:) that make the oil level even more critical doesn't it. What weight oil
are you using? I use a 20-50W semi syn. oil.
Just thought of one other thing. That breather assembly has a recommended
plumbing arrangement. I think it is made by Scat the VWs use them. Check how
the lines are routed. Go to their web site. I am guessing when you are hot,
straight, and level, no problem?
Again, unless you have some powerful blow by, things should not be that bad
all the time. My worst time was a cold, hard and steep climb out of a high
altitude airport. Oil every where. Good luck and will definitely be
interested in your find and solution.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of kurt
schrader
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: NSI Turbo oil breather
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Thanks for all the thought work Rick,
I am learning a lot about this engine, which makes
decisions better.
Just a few answers, then some things learned and ideas
to consider.
I origionally set my oil level based upon the
dipstick, but had to remark it to show the full level
as a taildragger. This turned out to be still too
high due to the return line position. I tested for
levels using a remote breather in the cockpit and
added a cup at a time watching for burping until I
could at least read the level on the dipstick. That
is working, but I am venting the engine only thru a
5/16th line. Not very good as a breather.
The return line is almost as high up in the back of
the pan as it can get, but at least 2 of 4 qts need to
be removed from the pan to fully uncover it in the 3
point position. In a climb, it is even worse. that
level is too low.
Origionally I had no trouble doing ground checks with
an adjusted "full" pan in the 3 point position. The
first problem showed up when I ran up to higher power
on a slanted ramp to simulate takeoff. Big burp! I
made a catch system much like yours and it did ok
until my 3rd or 4th flight. BIG burp on takeoff. It
even blew out of the 11 oz catch cup. Lost over 1/2
qt in a 12 minute engine run & flight. Maybe 5
minutes of actual flight? Since then I used the
remote cockpit mounted breather to establish a safe
level. That is at the very bottom of the dipstick.
It is also still above the return line port. I expect
that more trouble looms.
I read my Chilton's a bit more and studied the engine
directly. Talked to another soob guy and read your
reply too. I found the major air and oil flows and
now understand that much better.
Venting out the valve covers is sufficient and there
doesn't need to be any venting out the pan at all. It
relieves up the pushrod holes just fine.
Today I bought a large PVC valve that can be installed
in the return line. Pressure should be relieved out
the valve covers, not out the return line. With a PVC
valve in the return line, short blasts of blowby
shouldn't blow more than a spit of oil up, then drain
down just fine. Pressure should leave the valve
covers just fine. That is mostly a good solution and
a "full" oilpan should be no problem.
Then Clare Snyder over on the Soob site had a really
good suggestion. Cap off the pan return. Have 2
seperate breathers, one above each valve cover, that
drain right back to the heads. He uses larger hoses
off the valve covers so that the air can get out and
the oil can drain right back unimpeeded. There
shouldn't be that much oil anyway. I think his system
will not have any losses to speak of, unless you pull
negative "G's". And it can be lighter.
He used hydraulic tank vents at the end of 3-4" hoses.
The hoses are stuffed with stainless steel pot
scrubber and a screen is at the bottom to keep it from
falling into the valve cover area. (That screen
better be mounted well) Nothing much to it.
What do you think?
Gotta get ready to leave for Florida tomorrow.
Kurt S.
__________________________________
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Shane Sather" <jeffery@polarnet.ca>
I say lucky you. I have been waiting for 5 or 6 weeks for flair kit and no
word yet.
Shane
----- Original Message -----
From: <owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by:
>
> Ive just recibed a new wing and some other items two
> weeks ago, as I had a hard ground loop in my Classic
> IV. Dave Morris and Crystal, from SkyStar were always
> helpful. They sent all on time and I recibed a great
> service. Im glad with SS.
>
> Francisco Icaza
> Classic IV in Mexico.
>
>
> --- Steve Cooper <spdrflyr@earthlink.net> escribi: >
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper"
> > <spdrflyr@earthlink.net>
> >
> > Hi Foxers,
> >
> > I am in the process of adapting the Series 5 Spring
> > Aluminum gear for my
> > Avid Mark IV/Jabiru. I called Grove (man, is that
> > boy in need of a major
> > attitude adjustment or what?) Got nowhere. I called
> > Skystar after listening
> > to Grove ...Boy!, was I plesently surprised! They
> > are too cool! I don't
> > even own a Fox and they fell all over themselves to
> > help. Anyway, to make a
> > long story short, I got the information I needed and
> > Skystar really went out
> > of their way to help.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> > Contributions
> > any other
> > Forums.
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/chat
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> > http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
> > http://www.matronics.com/archives
> > http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> > http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> La mejor conexin a internet y 25MB extra a tu correo por $100 al mes.
http://net.yahoo.com.mx
>
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Paul,
Mach??? That would be about .152 Mach by my calc.
Comes in around 1 Standard Farve unit or just short of
a full Lombardi, as we all are. A Lombardi always
being what you did at 100%, and just a little bit
more.
You could use .82 times 10 to the minus 27 power
sublight speed, but I might be off on that last digit.
Do not archive
Kurt S.
__________________________________
Message 35
| 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: | NSI Turbo oil breather |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Rick,
I'll have to answer more later. Still doing laundry
at 1 am and need to get a letter off to my daughter
too, before bed. Pack to travel and leave tomorrow
and I haven't finalized my airshow shopping list - as
usual.
Thanks for saying it is the airplane that is "old
fashioned".
I am using 20w50 Castrol as Lance recommended. Next
possibility is AvShell straight 60 wt equivelent or
higher, if I need it.
I need more time off! I would like to add those SS
exhaust valves too!
I don't remember you saying what happened when the
valve went. In flight? New engine? That bad?
If I remember correctly, Lance said that the valves
should be good to around 1600 and the heads over 1700
before cracking. He thinks we are running them too
hot and don't know it. He is really against turning
the fuel pump off. But he really liked the SS valve
idea.
Kurt S.
__________________________________
Message 36
| 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: Question Foxers |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
Michel and others have given good explinations and sources of tape. I used
Ski saver tape. There are pictures posted at Sport flight. Have to run I
just got callled in to work. :(
Jim Shumaker
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry and Lisa Horne" <hornav8@erols.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Larry and Lisa Horne"
<hornav8@erols.com>
>
> Jim,
>
> Can you expand on your gap seals? wha material did you use and its source?
>
> Lar KF2/582
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of jimshumaker
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker"
<jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Robert
>
> 1.3 is a standard short approach speed. I confirm my stall speed before
> each short field approach. There can easily be 5 mph difference between
> solo and dual. That would be a 7 mph difference in approach speeds. Your
> approach would be within 4 mph of stall.
>
> I wheel landed for a year or two until I sealed the gap and put Vortex
> generators on the wings. Oh yeah, and logged a few hundred landings into
> short fields.
>
> Jim Shumaker
>
>
Message 37
| 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: Question Foxers |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
Yup. Stall it and let it hobby horse. repeat it at different RPM settings
just because of the difference in stall speed at different engine speeds.
Jim Shumaker
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Subject: Jim stall speed? RE: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert"
<Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> When you confirm your stall speed do you actually do a stall at high
> altitude?
>
> Robert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jimshumaker
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker"
<jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Robert
>
> 1.3 is a standard short approach speed. I confirm my stall speed before
> each short field approach. There can easily be 5 mph difference between
> solo and dual. That would be a 7 mph difference in approach speeds. Your
> approach would be within 4 mph of stall.
>
> I wheel landed for a year or two until I sealed the gap and put Vortex
> generators on the wings. Oh yeah, and logged a few hundred landings into
> short fields.
>
> Jim Shumaker
>
>
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! --
|