Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:26 AM - Stretch-Fox (Rod Ewing)
2. 09:43 AM - Kitfox 5 For Sale (Steve & Bonnie Lorenz)
3. 10:16 AM - Cameron Air Park Fly-In (Bruce Harrington)
4. 10:22 AM - Cameron Park fly-in (John Balunda)
5. 10:24 AM - Cameron Park Fly-In - More (Bruce Harrington)
6. 10:25 AM - Stretch-Fox (Fox5flyer)
7. 10:48 AM - Stretch-Fox (hausding, sid)
8. 11:30 AM - Mod IV alterations (Clem Nichols)
9. 12:03 PM - Re: Classic IV 912S Firewall Forward - Need Help! (Bruce Lina)
10. 12:09 PM - Re: Stretch-Fox (Rod Ewing)
11. 01:11 PM - Suffolk flyin & Mod II question (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
12. 01:15 PM - Re: Stretch-Fox (Michel Verheughe)
13. 01:30 PM - Re: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question (Dale Kister)
14. 01:53 PM - Re: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question (Bob Robertson)
15. 02:05 PM - Re: Cameron Park fly-in (Lowell Fitt)
16. 02:47 PM - Stretch-Fox (Fox5flyer)
17. 03:16 PM - Re: Stretch-Fox (Vic Jacko)
18. 03:25 PM - LPS-1 (Randy Daughenbaugh)
19. 04:13 PM - Re: Mod IV alterations (Glenn Horne)
20. 04:34 PM - Re: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
21. 05:05 PM - Re: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
22. 06:00 PM - Re: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question (Dee Young)
23. 06:22 PM - Re: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
24. 06:31 PM - Re: Stretch-Fox (Andy)
25. 06:51 PM - 582 spark plug gap (possible tip) (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
26. 07:32 PM - Re: Stretch-Fox (Steve Zakreski)
27. 08:24 PM - Re: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question (dwight purdy)
28. 08:29 PM - Re: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question (dwight purdy)
29. 08:31 PM - Re: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question (dwight purdy)
30. 08:32 PM - Re: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question (Ron)
31. 08:37 PM - Re: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
32. 10:32 PM - Re: 582 spark plug gap (possible tip) (aerocon1@telusplanet.net)
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: "Rod Ewing" <rode@alaska.com>
Over the past year there has been a lot of mention of gap sealing to increase rudder
and elevator authority a low speeds, also a fair bit of concern regarding
ground loops. Does anyone know of builder who has lengthened the fuselage
of a model IV? It would seem to be an advantage especially if considering a
heavier power plant. I know it has proven quite successful in bush plane modified
Piper Pacers.
Rod-Model IV project
Wasilla, Alaska
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Kitfox 5 For Sale |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve & Bonnie Lorenz" <randlekids@lewiscounty.com>
If you know anyone interested in a completed Kitfox V with the classic bump cowl,
bungee gear, and NSI firewall forward with EA-81 Suburu & CAP 140 prop. I can
be contacted off line at 360-497-2245 (Wa.) or email randlekids@lewiscounty.com
. I am dropping the price from $32,500 to $29,500.
Steve Lorenz
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: | Cameron Air Park Fly-In |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Lowell & Kay,
What a great 6th fly-in! Great food, great people and great airplanes.
Our group of 3 Sonex were welcomed.
Thanks for putting on a great event.
Cheers,
Bruce
ex-N194KF 582ed IV-1200, 800+ hrs
N321SX Sonex, Jab 3300ed, 76.8 hrs
PS: With 2 stops coming down I covered the 341 miles in 3.0 hours.
I traded fuel for time on the return and took 2.8 hours with 1 stop and
headwinds.
Times include taxi and patterns. Cruise speeds were 140-150 mph!
Fuel burn was 5.31gph, 22.1 mpg, 117.6 ave mph.
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: | Cameron Park fly-in |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Balunda" <JohnCA58@pacbell.net>
Lowell , just wanted to say Thank you for a good time and BBQ at your place
yesterday. I flew in in a Dodge cummins , LOL maybe some day it will be in
a Fox 7, this was my 4th year... use to always fly in on a Harley... and
this year was the best yet.
John
Keeping a eye on the Sport pilot ruling
Do not Archive
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: | Cameron Park Fly-In - More |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Lowell,
I just checked the averages for the Ranchero to Roseburg return leg.
127.5 mph, 5.4 mph, 23.6 mpg, 1 hr 58 minutes, 255 miles.
Cheers, Bruce
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
I've often thought about this. Doesn't seem to be a difficult thing to do
and if done correctly by a competent welder it shouldn't derogate the
structual strength of the airplane. It would also solve all the problems of
wing sweep, battery in the tail, loooonnnngggg hot battery cables, and the
list goes on, not to mention the lighter overall weight. The question is
how much should be added? The math would be beyond me.
Darrel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rod Ewing" <rode@alaska.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rod Ewing" <rode@alaska.com>
>
> Over the past year there has been a lot of mention of gap sealing to
increase rudder and elevator authority a low speeds, also a fair bit of
concern regarding ground loops. Does anyone know of builder who has
lengthened the fuselage of a model IV? It would seem to be an advantage
especially if considering a heavier power plant. I know it has proven quite
successful in bush plane modified Piper Pacers.
>
> Rod-Model IV project
> Wasilla, Alaska
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "hausding, sid" <sidh@charter.net>
Get ahold of Steve Winder at Airdale. He is manufacturing and supporting
John Larsen's design (Pursang) in a model called the Airdale.............
very unique, stretched versions of the Avid and Kitfox ideas, with MANY
improvements! Airdale.com I think.............
Sid
---------------------
Over the past year there has been a lot of mention of gap sealing to
increase rudder and elevator authority a low speeds, also a fair bit of
concern regarding ground loops. Does anyone know of builder who has
lengthened the fuselage of a model IV? It would seem to be an advantage
especially if considering a heavier power plant. I know it has proven quite
successful in bush plane modified Piper Pacers.
Rod-Model IV project
Wasilla, Alaska
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Mod IV alterations |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
I just got in from flying my Model IV 1200 with the NSI Subaru EA81 conversion
for the second time since sealing the stabilizer-elevator gap with ski saver tape
and adding a 5 pound lead ballast to the tailwheel spring. (Probably) needless
to say it made a world of difference in my landings. Before, I could not
get the nose up into the proper attitude for a good 3-point landing. Now it's
quite easy. I couldn't be more pleased. As an aside, my plane is coming up
for its annual. I notice in the recommended checklist on the skystar web site,
it calls for using LPS-1 lubricant at various points. Can someone tell me
what this is? Thanks for your help. DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Classic IV 912S Firewall Forward - Need Help! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Lina" <airlina@usadatanet.net>
Grant, If your exhaust was Skystar supplied ,you very well may have the
wrong one. I purchased the Continental IO-240 firewall forward package from
SS which included the exhaust and when I couldn't get it to fit I found that
they had sent me a Lycoming exhaust. This was an honest mistake on their
part but I had a heck of a time convincing Dave Morris (the parts guy) that
it was the wrong one. He would not take my word on it and required me to
send pictures of the exhaust system they sent me-- just another example of
their poor customer support.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Grant Fluent" <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Classic IV 912S Firewall Forward - Need Help!
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
>
> Hello All,
> I am working on the firewall forward portion of my
> Kitfox Classic IV 912S and need help. If anyone has
> pictures of their engine installation that they would
> be willing to send me, I would like to see them. The
> pictures in the manual are very poor and I'm having
> trouble getting some things to fit - mainly the
> exhaust. I am totally convinced I have the exhaust for
> a model 5 or something because it's not even close to
> bolting up.
> Thanks!
> Grant Fluent
> Newcastle, NE
>
>
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: "Rod Ewing" <rode@alaska.com>
Darrel,
The math is beyond me as well. I imagine there must be a multitude of
issues to be resolved. For instance, in the three point configuration the
angle of attack would lessen as the fuselage became longer. In the Pacer
mod, I believe the main landing gear was made taller to compensate for the
AOA and provide ground clearance for a longer prop. I will ask a friend
who has completed quite a few Pacer "Performer" conversions. I havent
covered my fuselage yet and am compelled to pursue this line of thought.
Any and all ideas or comments will be greatly appreciated.
Rod
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
> I've often thought about this. Doesn't seem to be a difficult thing to do
> and if done correctly by a competent welder it shouldn't derogate the
> structual strength of the airplane. It would also solve all the problems
of
> wing sweep, battery in the tail, loooonnnngggg hot battery cables, and the
> list goes on, not to mention the lighter overall weight. The question is
> how much should be added? The math would be beyond me.
> Darrel
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rod Ewing" <rode@alaska.com>
> To: "Kitfox List" <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rod Ewing" <rode@alaska.com>
> >
> > Over the past year there has been a lot of mention of gap sealing to
> increase rudder and elevator authority a low speeds, also a fair bit of
> concern regarding ground loops. Does anyone know of builder who has
> lengthened the fuselage of a model IV? It would seem to be an advantage
> especially if considering a heavier power plant. I know it has proven
quite
> successful in bush plane modified Piper Pacers.
> >
> > Rod-Model IV project
> > Wasilla, Alaska
> >
> >
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Suffolk flyin & Mod II question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
John King, the Rich Man and I just returned from the Suffolk flyin where
Glenn Horne bought us a fine breakfast. Had a good time sitting around
talking Kitfox's and relaxing.
While there, we took the opportunity to do a final inspection on Glenn's
model II Kitfox which is just about ready for first flight. We noticed
something that looks very strange. Glenn's model II has "NO" (I repeat, NO) exit
for engine cowling air on the bottom of the engine cowl. His cowl is very
similar to my Model IV except that mine has the bottom pilot side open for the
air
to exit the engine cowl. What gives with this? Were all the model II's
designed this way? How is the air supposed to exit the engine with "NO" openings?
Should Glenn be concerned about this and make a modification to provide an
air exit?
Don Smythe
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: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Rod Ewing wrote:
> For instance, in the three point configuration the
> angle of attack would lessen as the fuselage became longer.
In my humble opinion, Rod, I think that the angle of attack is already
different if one has small tyres or tundra balloon tyres. I don't think
stretching the fuselage would make a greater difference.
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: | Suffolk flyin & Mod II question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dale Kister" <2@dalekister.com>
I noticed this lack of air exits on my model 3 and I used a hole saw to put
4 or 5, 3" dia holes in the bottom for the air to get out. I don't know for
sure if the air exit holes were needed, but it seemed like a good idea to
put them in.
I added the holes before I flew the plane, so I don't have a before and
after comparison test.
Dale Kister
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
AlbertaIV@aol.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
John King, the Rich Man and I just returned from the Suffolk flyin where
Glenn Horne bought us a fine breakfast. Had a good time sitting around
talking Kitfox's and relaxing.
While there, we took the opportunity to do a final inspection on Glenn's
model II Kitfox which is just about ready for first flight. We noticed
something that looks very strange. Glenn's model II has "NO" (I repeat, NO)
exit
for engine cowling air on the bottom of the engine cowl. His cowl is very
similar to my Model IV except that mine has the bottom pilot side open for
the air
to exit the engine cowl. What gives with this? Were all the model II's
designed this way? How is the air supposed to exit the engine with "NO"
openings?
Should Glenn be concerned about this and make a modification to provide an
air exit?
Don Smythe
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson" <aerocon@telusplanet.net>
Hi Don,
I know that reducing cooling drag is important, but zero airflow is a bit
much 8
)
It's straight physics......Iff'n you can't get the air out, you can't get
clean cool air in. No airflow over the radiators, thus no cooling. Betcha
they forgot to do the cut out on the bottom of that cowl when the cowl was
manufactured.
regards
Bob Robertson
----- Original Message -----
From: <AlbertaIV@aol.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
> John King, the Rich Man and I just returned from the Suffolk flyin
where
> Glenn Horne bought us a fine breakfast. Had a good time sitting around
> talking Kitfox's and relaxing.
> While there, we took the opportunity to do a final inspection on
Glenn's
> model II Kitfox which is just about ready for first flight. We noticed
> something that looks very strange. Glenn's model II has "NO" (I repeat,
NO) exit
> for engine cowling air on the bottom of the engine cowl. His cowl is very
> similar to my Model IV except that mine has the bottom pilot side open
for the air
> to exit the engine cowl. What gives with this? Were all the model II's
> designed this way? How is the air supposed to exit the engine with "NO"
openings?
> Should Glenn be concerned about this and make a modification to provide
an
> air exit?
>
> Don Smythe
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cameron Park fly-in |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
John and others, I have said this before after our fly-in here in Cameron
park, but I am truly amazed at the quality of people that are attracted to
the Kitfox. Not taking anything away from other airplanes, but once again
we have opened our home to a group of friends, acquaintances and in some
cases, until yesterday, people we have never met and it was wonderful.
I was able to put faces on a few of the names here on the list and that was
a special treat. As Kay and I were lying in bed talking about how the day
went - she thinking about the entries into her fly-in food diary and the
plans for next year and all I could think of was the magic of the Kitfox and
yes, the magic also of the Sonex that brought Bruce Harrington and three
others here. I guess I should also mention the Rans folks that came too.
What people!
As I brag about our fly-in to non-pilots I always ask them. Where can you
imagine that you could invite 70, or so, perfect strangers - that is what we
did on year one - with absolute confidence that all of them would respect
your home and leave you with only two concerns, that there be enough food
and that you will have time to meet and talk to everyone.
This year we were joined by Fred Shiple from Toledo who flew into SFO in the
big Bird and drove in, and Stan Specht who flew in from Lakewood, Colorado.
Both these men will share the imaginary long haul award for this year.
Others came in from Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Arizona and Southern California.
I should also mention that we were joined by the President of Skystar's
Experimental/Manufacturing Division, Frank Miller. Frank brought with him
"treats" for the Kitfox owners and builders. Thanks Frank, this brings to
five, the number of consecutinve years Skystar has been to the Cameron Park
event.
Thanks again to those that came, my neighbors that welcomed us to use their
front yards, to the friends that helped and also to those that thought about
coming - maybe next year.
Lowell P.S Our Group is planning a trip to Oshkosh this year. For me
that gives a special opportunity to meet and put faces to a lot more names
that I see so often here.
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Balunda" <JohnCA58@pacbell.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Cameron Park fly-in
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Balunda" <JohnCA58@pacbell.net>
>
> Lowell , just wanted to say Thank you for a good time and BBQ at your
place
> yesterday. I flew in in a Dodge cummins , LOL maybe some day it will be
in
> a Fox 7, this was my 4th year... use to always fly in on a Harley... and
> this year was the best yet.
>
> John
>
> Keeping a eye on the Sport pilot ruling
>
>
> Do not Archive
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Good point. I'm sure the aoa would be affected slightly, but we're only
talking about extending the frame a few inches and I don't think the affect
on aoa would amount to enough of a difference to matter. The reason I
responded to this thread was that just extending the fuse would be a
relatively simple fix for the problems encountered with the heavy engines.
If I were to do it over again I'd give some serious thought to going this
route. The only problem I can see is "how much and where".
Darrel
> The math is beyond me as well. I imagine there must be a multitude of
> issues to be resolved. For instance, in the three point configuration
the
> angle of attack would lessen as the fuselage became longer. In the Pacer
> mod, I believe the main landing gear was made taller to compensate for
the
> AOA and provide ground clearance for a longer prop. I will ask a friend
> who has completed quite a few Pacer "Performer" conversions. I havent
> covered my fuselage yet and am compelled to pursue this line of thought.
> Any and all ideas or comments will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Rod
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer"
<morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> >
> > I've often thought about this. Doesn't seem to be a difficult thing to
do
> > and if done correctly by a competent welder it shouldn't derogate the
> > structual strength of the airplane. It would also solve all the
problems
> of
> > wing sweep, battery in the tail, loooonnnngggg hot battery cables, and
the
> > list goes on, not to mention the lighter overall weight. The question
is
> > how much should be added? The math would be beyond me.
> > Darrel
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rod Ewing" <rode@alaska.com>
> > To: "Kitfox List" <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox
> >
> >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rod Ewing" <rode@alaska.com>
> > >
> > > Over the past year there has been a lot of mention of gap sealing to
> > increase rudder and elevator authority a low speeds, also a fair bit of
> > concern regarding ground loops. Does anyone know of builder who has
> > lengthened the fuselage of a model IV? It would seem to be an
advantage
> > especially if considering a heavier power plant. I know it has proven
> quite
> > successful in bush plane modified Piper Pacers.
> > >
> > > Rod-Model IV project
> > > Wasilla, Alaska
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: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Sounds like the makings of a "Super Fox" that I may one day build if I can
find a derelict 5,6 or 7 someone has given up on.
I would very much like to mount the battery right up front and not have to
sweep the wings forward.
My not so scientific calculations tell me I would extend the fuse exactly
12" right in front of the rudder. This should allow the use of a heavy
engine and battery located forward.
By the time you replace all the heavy stuff on the Lycoming 0-235 I think
you would end up with about a 225 lb engine package ready to fly. If you do
the same to the Lycoming 0-320 E2D you would have an engine package that
add another 31 lbs and have about 175 horsepower with proper ignition and
exhaust mods. We have the makings of a 899 lb Super Fox.
Please somebody build it and I will be your mentor and get the first test
flight. Cliff B. will probably challenge me on that.
I will be out of town this week but will be very interested in hearing
responses.
Derelict Series 5,6 or 7 where are you?
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
> Good point. I'm sure the aoa would be affected slightly, but we're only
> talking about extending the frame a few inches and I don't think the
affect
> on aoa would amount to enough of a difference to matter. The reason I
> responded to this thread was that just extending the fuse would be a
> relatively simple fix for the problems encountered with the heavy engines.
> If I were to do it over again I'd give some serious thought to going this
> route. The only problem I can see is "how much and where".
> Darrel
>
> > The math is beyond me as well. I imagine there must be a multitude of
> > issues to be resolved. For instance, in the three point configuration
> the
> > angle of attack would lessen as the fuselage became longer. In the
Pacer
> > mod, I believe the main landing gear was made taller to compensate for
> the
> > AOA and provide ground clearance for a longer prop. I will ask a
friend
> > who has completed quite a few Pacer "Performer" conversions. I havent
> > covered my fuselage yet and am compelled to pursue this line of thought.
> > Any and all ideas or comments will be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Rod
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox
> >
> >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer"
> <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> > >
> > > I've often thought about this. Doesn't seem to be a difficult thing
to
> do
> > > and if done correctly by a competent welder it shouldn't derogate the
> > > structual strength of the airplane. It would also solve all the
> problems
> > of
> > > wing sweep, battery in the tail, loooonnnngggg hot battery cables, and
> the
> > > list goes on, not to mention the lighter overall weight. The question
> is
> > > how much should be added? The math would be beyond me.
> > > Darrel
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Rod Ewing" <rode@alaska.com>
> > > To: "Kitfox List" <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox
> > >
> > >
> > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rod Ewing" <rode@alaska.com>
> > > >
> > > > Over the past year there has been a lot of mention of gap sealing to
> > > increase rudder and elevator authority a low speeds, also a fair bit
of
> > > concern regarding ground loops. Does anyone know of builder who has
> > > lengthened the fuselage of a model IV? It would seem to be an
> advantage
> > > especially if considering a heavier power plant. I know it has proven
> > quite
> > > successful in bush plane modified Piper Pacers.
> > > >
> > > > Rod-Model IV project
> > > > Wasilla, Alaska
>
>
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: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Clem,
LPS-1 is a greaseless (?) lubricant. It is available from Aircraft Spruce.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clem Nichols
Subject: Kitfox-List: Mod IV alterations
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
I just got in from flying my Model IV 1200 with the NSI Subaru EA81
conversion for the second time since sealing the stabilizer-elevator gap
with ski saver tape and adding a 5 pound lead ballast to the tailwheel
spring. (Probably) needless to say it made a world of difference in my
landings. Before, I could not get the nose up into the proper attitude for
a good 3-point landing. Now it's quite easy. I couldn't be more pleased.
As an aside, my plane is coming up for its annual. I notice in the
recommended checklist on the skystar web site, it calls for using LPS-1
lubricant at various points. Can someone tell me what this is? Thanks for
your help.
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Mod IV alterations |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Glenn Horne" <glennflys@rcn.com>
See aircraft spruce catlog. LPS-1 .2 . & 3 are in there.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Clem Nichols
Subject: Kitfox-List: Mod IV alterations
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
I just got in from flying my Model IV 1200 with the NSI Subaru EA81
conversion for the second time since sealing the stabilizer-elevator gap
with ski saver tape and adding a 5 pound lead ballast to the tailwheel
spring. (Probably) needless to say it made a world of difference in my
landings. Before, I could not get the nose up into the proper attitude for
a good 3-point landing. Now it's quite easy. I couldn't be more pleased.
As an aside, my plane is coming up for its annual. I notice in the
recommended checklist on the skystar web site, it calls for using LPS-1
lubricant at various points. Can someone tell me what this is? Thanks for
your help. DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
It's straight physics......Iff'n you can't get the air out, you can't get
clean cool air in. No airflow over the radiators, thus no cooling. Betcha
they forgot to do the cut out on the bottom of that cowl when the cowl was
manufactured.
regards
Bob Robertson
Bob,
I don't think forgetting to do the cutout is the problem. The whole
bottom of the cowl fits up flush with the bottom of the fuselage. The design of
the bottom cowl is totally different from the later model's.
As far as cooling for the radiator, his present design should be better.
The bottom cowl is flat and ends right at the face of the rad creating a not
obstructive flow from the prop all the way down and back. No obstructions
line mine has (the protruding air outlet).
Don Smythe
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
Two other things that just hit my mind about the lack of cowl air
exit....One, the muffler will tend to generate massive heat that cannot escape
the
cowl...Two, what about the possibility of pressure build up inside the cowl that
will affect the carb vents of the 582? Come on guys, lets beat this one to
death a bit. One of our members is about to do first flight and I think this
needs immediate attention. I'm getting back on a soap box for safety.
Is the model III built the same as the model II (no outlet for cowl air)?
Help us out here...........
Don Smythe
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: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question |
Seal-Send-Time: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 17:57:17 -0700
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dee Young" <henrysfork1@msn.com>
My model II has an outlet the full width of the fire wall and about three inches
wide. It resembles and air scoop facing backwards. I still had to tightly baffle
around the inside of the cowl for adiquate cooling. Pressure and heat will
be a problem if Glen doesn't git it opened up some.
Dee Young
Model II N345DY
----- Original Message -----
From: AlbertaIV@aol.com<mailto:AlbertaIV@aol.com>
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com<mailto:kitfox-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com<mailto:AlbertaIV@aol.com>
Two other things that just hit my mind about the lack of cowl air
exit....One, the muffler will tend to generate massive heat that cannot escape
the
cowl...Two, what about the possibility of pressure build up inside the cowl that
will affect the carb vents of the 582? Come on guys, lets beat this one to
death a bit. One of our members is about to do first flight and I think this
needs immediate attention. I'm getting back on a soap box for safety.
Is the model III built the same as the model II (no outlet for cowl air)?
Help us out here...........
Don Smythe
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: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 6/13/04 6:02:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
henrysfork1@msn.com writes:
> My model II has an outlet the full width of the fire wall and about three
> inches wide. It resembles and air scoop facing backwards. I still had to
> tightly baffle around the inside of the cowl for adiquate cooling. Pressure and
> heat will be a problem if Glen doesn't git it opened up some.
>
> Dee Young
>
Dee,
This is the kind of report we are looking for but, Glenn's model II has
"no" opening of any kind....Are you saying that your opening was all the way
across the bottom and open about 3 inches? Glenns is straight across the bottom
and tight against the bottom of the fuselage. Absolutly no opening, no
airscoop.....just flat. Do you have any pictures available?
Don Smythe
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: "Andy" <fultz@trip.net>
I'll echo that you should contact Steve Winder at Airdale.com . I had him
stretch my AVID 16". It's a common mod that he offers for the AVID and I'm
sure he can give you the details for the Fox as well. Those I have talked
to about the stretch rave about it. Better ground handling, more stable in
the air, and fix the heavy engine CG problem as well. So there's more than
one advantage in the stretch mod.
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Vic Jacko
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Sounds like the makings of a "Super Fox" that I may one day build if I can
find a derelict 5,6 or 7 someone has given up on.
I would very much like to mount the battery right up front and not have to
sweep the wings forward.
My not so scientific calculations tell me I would extend the fuse exactly
12" right in front of the rudder. This should allow the use of a heavy
engine and battery located forward.
By the time you replace all the heavy stuff on the Lycoming 0-235 I think
you would end up with about a 225 lb engine package ready to fly. If you do
the same to the Lycoming 0-320 E2D you would have an engine package that
add another 31 lbs and have about 175 horsepower with proper ignition and
exhaust mods. We have the makings of a 899 lb Super Fox.
Please somebody build it and I will be your mentor and get the first test
flight. Cliff B. will probably challenge me on that.
I will be out of town this week but will be very interested in hearing
responses.
Derelict Series 5,6 or 7 where are you?
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
> Good point. I'm sure the aoa would be affected slightly, but we're only
> talking about extending the frame a few inches and I don't think the
affect
> on aoa would amount to enough of a difference to matter. The reason I
> responded to this thread was that just extending the fuse would be a
> relatively simple fix for the problems encountered with the heavy engines.
> If I were to do it over again I'd give some serious thought to going this
> route. The only problem I can see is "how much and where".
> Darrel
>
> > The math is beyond me as well. I imagine there must be a multitude of
> > issues to be resolved. For instance, in the three point configuration
> the
> > angle of attack would lessen as the fuselage became longer. In the
Pacer
> > mod, I believe the main landing gear was made taller to compensate for
> the
> > AOA and provide ground clearance for a longer prop. I will ask a
friend
> > who has completed quite a few Pacer "Performer" conversions. I havent
> > covered my fuselage yet and am compelled to pursue this line of thought.
> > Any and all ideas or comments will be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Rod
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox
> >
> >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer"
> <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> > >
> > > I've often thought about this. Doesn't seem to be a difficult thing
to
> do
> > > and if done correctly by a competent welder it shouldn't derogate the
> > > structual strength of the airplane. It would also solve all the
> problems
> > of
> > > wing sweep, battery in the tail, loooonnnngggg hot battery cables, and
> the
> > > list goes on, not to mention the lighter overall weight. The question
> is
> > > how much should be added? The math would be beyond me.
> > > Darrel
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Rod Ewing" <rode@alaska.com>
> > > To: "Kitfox List" <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox
> > >
> > >
> > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rod Ewing" <rode@alaska.com>
> > > >
> > > > Over the past year there has been a lot of mention of gap sealing to
> > > increase rudder and elevator authority a low speeds, also a fair bit
of
> > > concern regarding ground loops. Does anyone know of builder who has
> > > lengthened the fuselage of a model IV? It would seem to be an
> advantage
> > > especially if considering a heavier power plant. I know it has proven
> > quite
> > > successful in bush plane modified Piper Pacers.
> > > >
> > > > Rod-Model IV project
> > > > Wasilla, Alaska
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 582 spark plug gap (possible tip) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
A couple day ago, I took my daughter to lunch and the old 582 just about
didn't start after we finished eating. I was a little delinquent in changing
the plugs so did so this morning before I met with John King for the flyin to
Suffolk. Prior to changing the plugs, the engine would fire in about 3-4
revolutions of the prop. After setting and changing the plugs the engine fired
on
the first revolution and ran/idled better.
I've always used the procedure below but this time it seemed to work even
better maybe because I really needed new plugs this time. Anyway, I put the
plugs in a vise and tap gently with a small hammer at a 45 degree angle where
the plug ground wire makes the 90 degree angle. This pushes the whole ground
wire over toward the center of the plug and when you get a tight .016" gap,
the entire gap is "parallel" to the plugs electrode. I initially put a .012"
flat feeler gauge in the gap while tapping with the hammer. Once it's formed in
toward the center of the plug, the .016" fits snug and is much more parallel
to the electrode.
It's my opinion that if you simply bend down the ground from the factory
setting (out of the box) on the NGK plugs to a .016" gap, you end up with a
setting that is not even close to parallel and therefore create a less than
productive spark. A parallel fit produces a better spark with a more equal
surface distance.
Works great for me,
Don Smythe
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
Rod
I think you are getting overly concerned about these problems because of
recent posts. You are hearing from those with problems, but you are not
hearing from the multitudes who are not having problems. There are lots of
reasons which might give ground loop tendencies unrelated to the aircraft
design. The issues regarding insufficient tail surface authority were solved
with the model 4. All models from the 4 on had larger tail surfaces. I
have plenty of authority on my Classic 4, both elevator and rudder.
Similar with the ground loop issues. I don't find my Kitfox particularly
prone to ground looping, and it is not at all difficult or tricky to
take-off and land, though I suppose if I ground looped tomorrow my opinion
may change. I find it fairly easy to fly. Once again, I think a lot of the
handling issues were solved with later models. My aircraft is a Classic 4,
with Grove gear with the speedster (ribbed) tail surfaces. I can't speak
with authority about the other models, but I can say you will likely be
happy with the flying qualities if you continue as you are. In fact, some
people who have flown several models have mentioned that the Model 4 has the
best flying qualities of the series. Why mess with it.
SteveZ
Calgary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rod Ewing
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rod Ewing" <rode@alaska.com>
Darrel,
The math is beyond me as well. I imagine there must be a multitude of
issues to be resolved. For instance, in the three point configuration the
angle of attack would lessen as the fuselage became longer. In the Pacer
mod, I believe the main landing gear was made taller to compensate for the
AOA and provide ground clearance for a longer prop. I will ask a friend
who has completed quite a few Pacer "Performer" conversions. I havent
covered my fuselage yet and am compelled to pursue this line of thought.
Any and all ideas or comments will be greatly appreciated.
Rod
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
> I've often thought about this. Doesn't seem to be a difficult thing to do
> and if done correctly by a competent welder it shouldn't derogate the
> structual strength of the airplane. It would also solve all the problems
of
> wing sweep, battery in the tail, loooonnnngggg hot battery cables, and the
> list goes on, not to mention the lighter overall weight. The question is
> how much should be added? The math would be beyond me.
> Darrel
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rod Ewing" <rode@alaska.com>
> To: "Kitfox List" <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rod Ewing" <rode@alaska.com>
> >
> > Over the past year there has been a lot of mention of gap sealing to
> increase rudder and elevator authority a low speeds, also a fair bit of
> concern regarding ground loops. Does anyone know of builder who has
> lengthened the fuselage of a model IV? It would seem to be an advantage
> especially if considering a heavier power plant. I know it has proven
quite
> successful in bush plane modified Piper Pacers.
> >
> > Rod-Model IV project
> > Wasilla, Alaska
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: dwight purdy <dpurdy@comteck.com>
Don
My model II did not have a cutout either. There was a good size gap
around the tailpipe and the trailing edge of the cowl was not fastened,so
could bow down with the ram air going through the cowl. This is how it was
from the original builder. It worked ok but I put a couple stand offs to
bow it down.
Dwight
At 04:10 PM 6/13/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
> John King, the Rich Man and I just returned from the Suffolk flyin where
>Glenn Horne bought us a fine breakfast. Had a good time sitting around
>talking Kitfox's and relaxing.
> While there, we took the opportunity to do a final inspection on Glenn's
>model II Kitfox which is just about ready for first flight. We noticed
>something that looks very strange. Glenn's model II has "NO" (I repeat,
>NO) exit
>for engine cowling air on the bottom of the engine cowl. His cowl is very
>similar to my Model IV except that mine has the bottom pilot side
>open for the air
>to exit the engine cowl. What gives with this? Were all the model II's
>designed this way? How is the air supposed to exit the engine with "NO"
>openings?
> Should Glenn be concerned about this and make a modification to provide an
>air exit?
>
>Don Smythe
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Version: 6.0.701 / Virus Database: 458 - Release Date: 6/7/2004
---
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: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: dwight purdy <dpurdy@comteck.com>
I just thought the air thru the radiator was free outside air flow. Never
had a problem cooling. I just wanted to get more heat away from the muffler.
Dwight
At 07:33 PM 6/13/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
>It's straight physics......Iff'n you can't get the air out, you can't get
>clean cool air in. No airflow over the radiators, thus no cooling. Betcha
>they forgot to do the cut out on the bottom of that cowl when the cowl was
>manufactured.
>
>regards
>
>Bob Robertson
>
>
>Bob,
> I don't think forgetting to do the cutout is the problem. The whole
>bottom of the cowl fits up flush with the bottom of the fuselage. The
>design of
>the bottom cowl is totally different from the later model's.
> As far as cooling for the radiator, his present design should be
> better.
>The bottom cowl is flat and ends right at the face of the rad creating a not
>obstructive flow from the prop all the way down and back. No obstructions
>line mine has (the protruding air outlet).
>
>Don Smythe
>DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Version: 6.0.701 / Virus Database: 458 - Release Date: 6/7/2004
---
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: dwight purdy <dpurdy@comteck.com>
I think the manual calls for a inch gap across the bottom. I will check my
manual.
dwight
At 08:04 PM 6/13/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
> Two other things that just hit my mind about the lack of cowl air
>exit....One, the muffler will tend to generate massive heat that cannot
>escape the
>cowl...Two, what about the possibility of pressure build up inside the
>cowl that
>will affect the carb vents of the 582? Come on guys, lets beat this one to
>death a bit. One of our members is about to do first flight and I think this
>needs immediate attention. I'm getting back on a soap box for safety.
> Is the model III built the same as the model II (no outlet for cowl air)?
>
>Help us out here...........
>Don Smythe
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Version: 6.0.701 / Virus Database: 458 - Release Date: 6/7/2004
---
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron" <rliebmann@comcast.net>
Tony Bingelis, sportplane guru for decades explained to me when I was
building my Fox that the exit air opening should ideally be 150% of the
inlet air on round cowls. That is unless they are designed to be
pressurized, like a P-47. I opened up my exit area per Tony........not the
full 150% but at least 110%........
Ron N55KF
>
> My model II has an outlet the full width of the fire wall and about
three inches wide. It resembles and air scoop facing backwards. I still had
to tightly baffle around the inside of the cowl for adiquate cooling.
Pressure and heat will be a problem if Glen doesn't git it opened up some.
>
> Dee Young
> Model II N345DY
>
> Two other things that just hit my mind about the lack of cowl air
> exit....One, the muffler will tend to generate massive heat that
cannot escape the
> cowl...Two, what about the possibility of pressure build up inside the
cowl that
> will affect the carb vents of the 582? Come on guys, lets beat this
one to
> death a bit. One of our members is about to do first flight and I
think this
> needs immediate attention. I'm getting back on a soap box for safety.
> Is the model III built the same as the model II (no outlet for
cowl air)?
>
> Help us out here...........
> Don Smythe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Suffolk flyin & Mod II question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
Don
My model II did not have a cutout either. There was a good size gap
around the tailpipe and the trailing edge of the cowl was not fastened,so
could bow down with the ram air going through the cowl. This is how it was
from the original builder. It worked ok but I put a couple stand offs to
bow it down.
Dwight
Dwight/Glenn,
Glenn has a rather large hole for his tail pipe. I thought he had cut it
but it may have been a factory cut hole. Glenn, was the hole factory cut?
Love it when a plan starts to come together. Thanks for the insight.
Don Smythe
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: | Re: 582 spark plug gap (possible tip) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: aerocon1@telusplanet.net
Hey Don,
You get the "tech tip of the week" award for that one. You are 100% on track.
The spark eminates from the edges of the electrode. If you just bend the
ground down to get the .016 gap you will have one side lower than the other.
Electricity will take the line of least resistance therefore giving you spark
on one side of your electrode only.
By doing it your way (which, by the way, is the correct way to gap a plug) you
get spark from 360 degrees of the electrode.
Congrats.
Bob Robertson
Light Engine Services Ltd.
Rotax Service Center
Quoting AlbertaIV@aol.com:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
> A couple day ago, I took my daughter to lunch and the old 582 just about
>
> didn't start after we finished eating. I was a little delinquent in changing
>
> the plugs so did so this morning before I met with John King for the flyin to
>
> Suffolk. Prior to changing the plugs, the engine would fire in about 3-4
> revolutions of the prop. After setting and changing the plugs the engine
> fired on
> the first revolution and ran/idled better.
> I've always used the procedure below but this time it seemed to work even
>
> better maybe because I really needed new plugs this time. Anyway, I put the
>
> plugs in a vise and tap gently with a small hammer at a 45 degree angle where
>
> the plug ground wire makes the 90 degree angle. This pushes the whole ground
>
> wire over toward the center of the plug and when you get a tight .016" gap,
>
> the entire gap is "parallel" to the plugs electrode. I initially put a .012"
>
> flat feeler gauge in the gap while tapping with the hammer. Once it's formed
> in
> toward the center of the plug, the .016" fits snug and is much more parallel
>
> to the electrode.
> It's my opinion that if you simply bend down the ground from the factory
>
> setting (out of the box) on the NGK plugs to a .016" gap, you end up with a
>
> setting that is not even close to parallel and therefore create a less than
>
> productive spark. A parallel fit produces a better spark with a more equal
>
> surface distance.
>
> Works great for me,
> Don Smythe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|