---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 04/13/04: 37 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:48:04 AM PST US From: "Larry and Lisa Horne" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Larry and Lisa Horne" 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:00:13 AM PST US From: "Larry and Lisa Horne" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Larry and Lisa Horne" 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:20:40 AM PST US From: michel Subject: Kitfox-List: Gap sealing WAS Question Foxers --> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel >===== Original Message From "Larry and Lisa Horne" >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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:13:32 AM PST US From: Fred Shiple Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: To drag or not to drag.......Radiator Scoops --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:07:16 AM PST US From: CaroleandJoeP@aol.com Subject: Kitfox-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:47:10 AM PST US From: Steve Zakreski Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: To drag or not to drag.......Radiator Scoops --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski 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 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 > > 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 > > > 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:52:50 AM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" 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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" > > 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" > To: > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > > > > 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:58:25 AM PST US From: Steve Zakreski Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GPS & Autopilot --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:01:02 AM PST US From: "Rick" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:04:27 AM PST US From: Steve Zakreski Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Air Speed --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski 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 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 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 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:17:13 AM PST US From: "Rick" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GPS & Autopilot --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" 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 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:33:45 AM PST US From: kerrjohna@comcast.net Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers --> 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" > > 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 > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:11:31 AM PST US From: "Rick" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: NSI Turbo oil breather --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "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 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 wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:16:08 AM PST US From: michel Subject: Kitfox-List: OT humour WAS: Question Foxers --> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel >===== Original Message From kurt schrader ===== >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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:21:13 AM PST US From: Michael Gibbs Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Air Speed --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:22:07 AM PST US From: Scott McClintock Subject: Kitfox-List: Gap Sealing Tape --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:00:17 AM PST US From: "Harris, Robert" Subject: Jim stall speed? RE: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:32:16 AM PST US From: "Harris, Robert" Subject: Important approach distance? RE: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" 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 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:08:22 PM PST US From: "Harris, Robert" Subject: RE: Jim stall speed? RE: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" 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" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:10:26 PM PST US From: Scott McClintock Subject: Kitfox-List: Aviation, gentlemen, is done in knots. --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:36:35 PM PST US From: Dcecil3@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:17:48 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Important approach distance? RE: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:22:42 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Used Kitfox and the DAR --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:29:17 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Air Speed --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:57:34 PM PST US 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 escribi: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:15:48 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Approach speed (1.3 stall speed) --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:26:36 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:14:39 PM PST US From: Dcecil3@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:46:41 PM PST US From: "Paul Seehafer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Air Speed --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" 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" Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Air Speed > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:03:16 PM PST US From: "Paul Seehafer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Air Speed --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" 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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Air Speed > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:34:08 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: NSI Turbo oil breather --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:21:00 PM PST US From: "Rick" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: NSI Turbo oil breather --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:59:18 PM PST US From: "Shane Sather" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Shane Sather" I say lucky you. I have been waiting for 5 or 6 weeks for flair kit and no word yet. Shane ----- Original Message ----- From: 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 escribi: > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" > > > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:53:06 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Air Speed --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:05:32 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: NSI Turbo oil breather --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:32:10 PM PST US From: "jimshumaker" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" 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" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Larry and Lisa Horne" > > 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" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:34:41 PM PST US From: "jimshumaker" Subject: Re: Jim stall speed? RE: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" 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" Subject: Jim stall speed? RE: Kitfox-List: Question Foxers > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" > > 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" > > 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 > >