Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:11 AM - SV: New 'Fox on line (Michel Verheughe)
2. 03:54 AM - Re: N60Fs flies (Fox5flyer)
3. 04:07 AM - Re: N60FS still flies (Fox5flyer)
4. 04:21 AM - Re: N60FS still flies (Grant Fluent)
5. 05:30 AM - Re: N60Fs flies (Mdkitfox@aol.com)
6. 06:25 AM - Re: N60Fs flies (Lowell Fitt)
7. 08:21 AM - Re: Stretch-Fox (Rod Ewing)
8. 12:49 PM - Re: Stretch-Fox (Paul Seehafer)
9. 01:15 PM - Re: Stretch-Fox (Lowell Fitt)
10. 02:00 PM - Frozen lakes WAS: Stretch-Fox (Michel Verheughe)
11. 02:04 PM - Re-Gapping Spark Plugs (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
12. 02:37 PM - I hate my plane (jeff.hays@aselia.com)
13. 03:57 PM - Re: I hate my plane (Scott McClintock)
14. 04:09 PM - Re: I hate my plane (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
15. 04:47 PM - Re: N60FS still flies (Jeff Sattin)
16. 06:37 PM - Throttle Control (Daniel Aller)
17. 07:03 PM - Re: N60FS still flies/strip (Fred Shiple)
18. 07:19 PM - Re: N60FS still flies/AFS (Fred Shiple)
19. 07:30 PM - Re: N60FS still flies/strip (Marc Arseneault)
20. 08:45 PM - AFS Finishing System ? (Andy)
21. 08:45 PM - Re: Stretch-Fox (Bruce Harrington)
22. 09:01 PM - Re: N60FS still flies/AFS (Grant Fluent)
23. 10:12 PM - Robert re soleniod helping start 582 (Rex & Jan Shaw)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New 'Fox on line |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> From: Don Pearsall [donpearsall@comcast.net]
> Congratulations Fred!
> http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1087355417.
Yes, congrats, Fred and ... wow, indeed, the grass is definitively greener on your
side!
:-) Michel
do not archive
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Way to go Fred!
Darrel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Shiple" <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: N60Fs flies
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Just completed flying off FAA's 40 hours. N60FS is an S6/912S that came in
at 820#. Gained some weight with a Prop-link hub (17#), 8" tires (8#), lexan
doors and turtledeck(8#) and that uneccesary (but not an option for this old
car guy) extra coat of paint (8-10#). Used AFS's water based urethane (don't
ask!). Its equipped for day VFR and will go on floats next summer.
> It flies honestly as Skystar advertized and was worth the 3 years work
(took about 6 months off during the process for good behavior). Thanks to
the many members of the list whose help made things go much more smoothly
and especially to John McBean. We all need to appreciate how lucky we are to
have John's help on the list.
> Blue Skys!
> Fred
>
>
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: | Re: N60FS still flies |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Beautiful job Fred. I love the paint job!
Where is that strip located?
Darrel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Shiple" <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: N60FS still flies
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
>
> oh...yeah. almost forgot. pics on sportflight.com under completions.
> fred
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N60FS still flies |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
Congratulations Fred! I took a look at your pictures.
Great looking airplane! How do you like the AFS paint?
Grant Fluent
Newcastle, NE
Classic IV 912S
Do Not Archive
--- Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple
> <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
>
> oh...yeah. almost forgot. pics on sportflight.com
> under completions.
> fred
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mdkitfox@aol.com
Fred,
Congratulations on a beautiful plane! The paint job is great and the strip
is awesome. What more can anyone say. Fly it in good health!
Regards,
Rick Weiss
Series V Speedster, 912S, SkyStar Serial Number 1
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: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Good work, Fred, and congratulations. It was niece meeting you and your
daughter last weekend. Hope to see your Kitfox also some day.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Shiple" <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: N60Fs flies
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Just completed flying off FAA's 40 hours. N60FS is an S6/912S that came in
at 820#. Gained some weight with a Prop-link hub (17#), 8" tires (8#), lexan
doors and turtledeck(8#) and that uneccesary (but not an option for this old
car guy) extra coat of paint (8-10#). Used AFS's water based urethane (don't
ask!). Its equipped for day VFR and will go on floats next summer.
> It flies honestly as Skystar advertized and was worth the 3 years work
(took about 6 months off during the process for good behavior). Thanks to
the many members of the list whose help made things go much more smoothly
and especially to John McBean. We all need to appreciate how lucky we are to
have John's help on the list.
> Blue Skys!
> Fred
>
>
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: "Rod Ewing" <rode@alaska.com>
Paul
Nimble in the air and possibly squirrely on the ground...... I guess flying
light planes will always have trade-offs. I live on a lake that is frozen
for five months and open for five months...so most of the time it will be
skiis or floats....both are much easier to handle on the surface than
wheels. The problem is in the two months of transition each year..... in
the past I had a Bellanca Scout and the first few landings on wheels were
sometimes exciting .... hence my concern with the Kitfox and groundlooping.
Thank you for your advice.....I truly wish to fly a plane that is more fun
than a Cub. I have decided to stay with the stock fuselage. For future
reference, I will continue the research on the extension, to see how much
work is involved and what those trade offs may be.
It was "nimble" that did it for me
Thank you- Rod
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
>
> Vic:
>
> Sounds like you just need to find an Avid Magnum kit laying around that is
> not finished. Already designed for an 0-320 on up to an 0-360. With the
> 160 hp 0-320 it is an awesome performer (I mean really awesome!!!). A
> friend has one, so my experiences are close to firsthand. On floats it
is
> incredible. Big baggage, large cabin, lots of fuel, and (wheeled) cruise
> speeds with the standard high lift airfoil around 125-130 mph.
>
> But, I think the Magnum also makes a good argument for not extending one's
> fueslage. For as long as it is, it can still be a handful. And I'm
certain
> the Magnum has a much longer fuselage than would an extended Kitfox.
>
> (Rod) Personally, I wouldn't want to give up the nimble handling that
comes
> from the short coupled fuselage the Kitfox has. I started flying Avids
way
> back when they were really short coupled (a Kitfox is long by comparison).
> Never was a problem for ground handling. You just have to learn it. And
> even though the Fox is only slightly longer than the Avid fuselage, you
can
> already tell when comparing the two that the Kitfox is not quite as
nimble.
> I therefore would not extend the fuselage. In my opinion a Kitfox would
now
> fly too much like a Cub. Just wouldn't be as much fun...
>
> Paul S
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> 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>
> > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > 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 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Rod:
Glad I was able to help. Fwiw - your airplane will be easy on skis, and
even easier as a floatplane (plus you will find your Kitfox to be one of
the very few airplanes that actually flies better on floats, not worse).
And they really aren't so bad as taildraggers. Just take your time and
learn the airplane. Modify your tailwheel as I suggested in an ealier
posting so you eliminate the swivel function and fly it that way for a long
time before putting the swivel function back in. You hardly need the swivel
feature anyhow, and it eliminates all possibilities of having a hard to land
airplane due to tailwheel issue possibilities. And if you can, stay off the
blacktop until you have truly mastered grass. Probably telling what you
already know, but thought if nothing else it could serve as a reminder...
Floats, skis, taildragger.....do you have any idea how many pilots would be
jealous of being able to do that?
Paul S
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rod Ewing" <rode@alaska.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rod Ewing" <rode@alaska.com>
>
> Paul
>
> Nimble in the air and possibly squirrely on the ground...... I guess
flying
> light planes will always have trade-offs. I live on a lake that is
frozen
> for five months and open for five months...so most of the time it will be
> skiis or floats....both are much easier to handle on the surface than
> wheels. The problem is in the two months of transition each year..... in
> the past I had a Bellanca Scout and the first few landings on wheels were
> sometimes exciting .... hence my concern with the Kitfox and
groundlooping.
> Thank you for your advice.....I truly wish to fly a plane that is more fun
> than a Cub. I have decided to stay with the stock fuselage. For future
> reference, I will continue the research on the extension, to see how much
> work is involved and what those trade offs may be.
>
> It was "nimble" that did it for me
>
> Thank you- Rod
>
> Do Not Archive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
> >
> > Vic:
> >
> > Sounds like you just need to find an Avid Magnum kit laying around that
is
> > not finished. Already designed for an 0-320 on up to an 0-360. With
the
> > 160 hp 0-320 it is an awesome performer (I mean really awesome!!!). A
> > friend has one, so my experiences are close to firsthand. On floats it
> is
> > incredible. Big baggage, large cabin, lots of fuel, and (wheeled)
cruise
> > speeds with the standard high lift airfoil around 125-130 mph.
> >
> > But, I think the Magnum also makes a good argument for not extending
one's
> > fueslage. For as long as it is, it can still be a handful. And I'm
> certain
> > the Magnum has a much longer fuselage than would an extended Kitfox.
> >
> > (Rod) Personally, I wouldn't want to give up the nimble handling that
> comes
> > from the short coupled fuselage the Kitfox has. I started flying Avids
> way
> > back when they were really short coupled (a Kitfox is long by
comparison).
> > Never was a problem for ground handling. You just have to learn it.
And
> > even though the Fox is only slightly longer than the Avid fuselage, you
> can
> > already tell when comparing the two that the Kitfox is not quite as
> nimble.
> > I therefore would not extend the fuselage. In my opinion a Kitfox would
> now
> > fly too much like a Cub. Just wouldn't be as much fun...
> >
> > Paul S
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
> > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > 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>
> > > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > > 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 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rod Ewing" <rode@alaska.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rod Ewing" <rode@alaska.com>
>
> Nimble in the air and possibly squirrely on the ground...... I guess
flying
> light planes will always have trade-offs.
This thread reminds me of the many times I talk about root canals with
patients. Have you ever heard anyone talk about the uneventful root canal
treatment? - literally thousands every day. I bet we all have heard about
the problem ones.
My Hobbs just turned 600 hours on my Model IV and I have probably many more
landings than that. And not a one has become a conversation topic - except
to a few witnesses. We have read of maybe a dozen or so ground loops on the
list since I have been affiliated with it - or maybe 2 dozen max. and that
in ten years. I think if every landing was posted on the list as well as
every ground loop, we would have a little better perspective as to the
handling qualities of our airplanes.
As you transition to the Kitfox, it may seem a bit squirrelly, but I
respectfully submit that it is really not the airplanes fault.
Lowell
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 |
|
| Subject: | Frozen lakes WAS: Stretch-Fox |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Rod Ewing wrote:
> I live on a lake that is frozen for five months and open for five months..
We also have many frozen lakes, here in Norway. The great thing with them is
that they are, during the winter, the longest runways in the world. It allows
us to train dead-stick landing ... you can't miss them!
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: | Re-Gapping Spark Plugs |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
All,
You might want to hold off on the re-gapping procedure I wrote about. As
pointed out on the list, there might be some drawback in using that
procedure. I've been talking to some spark plug expert in the UK and below is
the last
email he sent regarding that procedure and plugs in general. As first he
says that tapping the plug at a 45 degree angle "might" weaken the ground but he
wasn't sure. He goes on to say that re-gapping more than .2mm (.008" I think)
is not advised. He offers substitutes to the NKG BR8ES plugs. I realized
that there are about 8 zillion different plugs on the market and I'm certainly
not smart enough to start looking for a substitute. I just wonder if Rotax
spent that much time either....
Every time there is a good idea, there is always something ready to bite
you in the rear.
Still looking,
Don Smythe
************************
Hi again Don,
I can only reiterate the content of my previous mail. Regapping by more than
0.2mm is always advised against, of the two options you offer it would be
safest to leave the electrodes out of true. Far better would be to try a fine wire
plug which, as mentioned, should allow a larger gap to be used without
adjustment due to the reduced voltage requirement, you will also almost certainly
see performance gains.
You could try:
Denso
IW24
IW01-24
W24ESR-ZU
NGK
BR8EIX
BR8EG
Champion
N3G
These are all equivalent to your standard BR8ES.
Best regards,
Rob Hemsley
> ----- Original
>
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: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
I hate my Kitfox, it doesn't do any of the things it's supposed to do:
It doesn't stop flying like a shuttlecock when flaring, no instead it
floats forever.
It isn't squirrely when landing, so I haven't been able to ground loop
it.
The elevator still doesn't run out of authority, EVEN though I made
it heavy up front with a BIG beefy IO-240, nope it still wants to land
tailwheel first when I three point it. I even lightened the tail with
an Odyssey battery in the hope that this lightening the tail would do
it. All to no avail.
It doesn't snap upside down and whip into a spin when I slow fly
it with crossed controls ... I was hoping that this dangerous slip
behaviour would make a better pilot of me, but nope it won't do it.
I didn't airfoil my spring gear, gas caps, put on wheel pants,
or any of this. In fact I added 8.50x6.00 tires, all in an effort
to increase drag, but yet it still cruises the same speed, and
floats when landing ...
I just don't get it - I've been on the various kitfox lists for
a bunch of years now, and consistently my plane is supposed to do
all these things, but it won't. The only thing I can figure, is
I'm just a crappy pilot, and can't get the typical Kitfox behaviour
out of it ...
Jeff Hays
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: | Re: I hate my plane |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock <scott_mcclintock@dot.state.ak.us>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
>
>
> I hate my Kitfox, it doesn't do any of the things it's supposed to do:
Jeff,
You just aren't trying hard enuf'.
You can loop it, if you try. :-)
Scott in Nome
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: I hate my plane |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 6/16/04 2:38:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeff.hays@aselia.com writes:
> I just don't get it - I've been on the various kitfox lists for
> a bunch of years now, and consistently my plane is supposed to do
> all these things, but it won't. The only thing I can figure, is
> I'm just a crappy pilot, and can't get the typical Kitfox behaviour
> out of it ...
>
> Jeff Hays
>
>
Jeff,
If I were you, I'd get rid of that piece of junk. You could try using
some duct tape and attaching a 2"X4" on the trailing edge of the wing struts.
This might help to get you some of the desired results. Make sure you use
pressure treated so the weather doesn't get to it.
Don Smythe
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | N60FS still flies |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Sattin" <livinnmd@comcast.net>
Fred,
What a beautiful airplane!!! Must be an incredible feeling to have
built and now to be flying such a nice peace of art.
Congrads.
Jeff Sattin
Series V
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Throttle Control |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Daniel Aller" <daller1@zoominternet.net>
Anyone on the list with a Classic IV,
Is there anyone out there that has successfully balanced their carbs without having
a Vernier throttle and without a cockpit throttle cable stop adjustment.
I have a Classic IV with a Roxtax 912S engine. My firewall forward install kit
instructs to switch manifold and carbs so that the carb linkage is on the inboard
side instead of the outboard.
I would like to know if Skystar sent anyone a Vernier throttle that included some
sort of idle stop adjustment with the mentioned setup on a Classic IV.
Dan Aller
Waiting for FAA Inspection
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: N60FS still flies/strip |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Darrel,
The strip belongs to a friend. Used it for the fly-off. It's 10 miles north of
Toledo on his farm.
Fred
do not archive
Where is that strip located?
Darrel
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N60FS still flies/AFS |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Grant and Andy,
The material worked fine for covering and sealing. Had trouble spraying the white
base coat. Could never quite find the point between poor coverage and running
onto the floor, so we ended up sanding and re-applying every white panel we
sprayed. Had much better luck with the colors once the white was applied. AFS
sprays like water- worse than other urethanes according to my buddy who did the
finish application for me.
I've got a little concern about durability. I'm seeing less scratch/abrasion resistance
than I've seen on other local planes with the Stitts process. Fortunately
my son's RC model experience lead to a single stage/thinner based urethane
that's an acceptible color match and seals the edges of abrasions encountered
so far.
Grant, is my memory right when I recall you used AFS? What's been your experience?
How about durability?
Fred
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N60FS still flies/strip |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Marc Arseneault" <northernultralights@hotmail.com>
Fred,
Congrats and you have a very nice plane. I really like your paint scheme! I couldn't
agree with you more that John is a great help to this list and he is a very
nice guy.
Best Regards,
Marc Arseneault
Ontario Canada
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: | AFS Finishing System ? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andy" <fultz@trip.net>
O.K. Gang,
I've seen Fred's comment on the AFS system of cover and finish, now I
would like to hear from others who have used the system or can refer me to
others who have used the system. I'm seriously considering this system and
need your input. Thanks.
Andy Fultz
AVID Speedwing Extended
Stratus EA-81 stretched fuselage
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
I had over 1700 landings and takeoffs in my IV-1200, and not one ground loop.
bh
ex-N194KF, 582ed IV-1200, 575# empty, 800+ hrs
> This thread reminds me of the many times I talk about root canals with
> patients. Have you ever heard anyone talk about the uneventful root canal
> treatment? - literally thousands every day. I bet we all have heard about
> the problem ones.
>
> My Hobbs just turned 600 hours on my Model IV and I have probably many more
> landings than that. And not a one has become a conversation topic - except
> to a few witnesses. We have read of maybe a dozen or so ground loops on the
> list since I have been affiliated with it - or maybe 2 dozen max. and that
> in ten years. I think if every landing was posted on the list as well as
> every ground loop, we would have a little better perspective as to the
> handling qualities of our airplanes.
>
> As you transition to the Kitfox, it may seem a bit squirrelly, but I
> respectfully submit that it is really not the airplanes fault.
>
> Lowell
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: N60FS still flies/AFS |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
Fred,
Thanks for the info on the AFS sytem. I used the
Stits system (Polyfiber Polytone paint) on my Classic
IV. I liked it except for the possible long term
health effects from the MEK. I wore a respirator
whenever I could but I'm sure I was still exposed to
more MEK than I should have been. If I build another
kit and go the fabric route I'd like to try the
waterbase system.
Grant Fluent
Newcastle, NE
Classic IV 912S
photo page: http://photos.yahoo.com/gjfpilot
do not archive
--- Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple
> <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Grant and Andy,
> The material worked fine for covering and sealing.
> Had trouble spraying the white base coat. Could
> never quite find the point between poor coverage and
> running onto the floor, so we ended up sanding and
> re-applying every white panel we sprayed. Had much
> better luck with the colors once the white was
> applied. AFS sprays like water- worse than other
> urethanes according to my buddy who did the finish
> application for me.
> I've got a little concern about durability. I'm
> seeing less scratch/abrasion resistance than I've
> seen on other local planes with the Stitts process.
> Fortunately my son's RC model experience lead to a
> single stage/thinner based urethane that's an
> acceptible color match and seals the edges of
> abrasions encountered so far.
> Grant, is my memory right when I recall you used
> AFS? What's been your experience? How about
> durability?
> Fred
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Robert re soleniod helping start 582 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
Well Robert I don't know if a solenoid will help your performance but it
might help your plane to start.
. I also as you can see on list am having
trouble with getting my Rotax 582 started.
I am a retired electronics tech and so can maybe help a little with your
comments and questions even though I am sorting a
similar problem to you.
Re "what does a solenoid do" question. Robert it merely allows a low
current [ amps ] from your start switch or key to connect a high current
path from your battery to your starter motor. In the course of chasing my
starting problem I have come across the advice that the solenoid has been
found to be the
cause of poor cranking speed. If the high current contacts in it are not
good this would be so. Mine is a little black plastic box about roughly 1
1/2" cubed. I never have liked the look of it and am likely to change it
now. When I bought my plane I was given all sorts of goodies with it and
one
was a brand new never unsealed little metal starter solenoid. I now suspect
the previous owner builder was one step ahead but didn't get around to
making the change.
You say the PC625 doesn't spin the motor fast enough. Well my setup is
much the same Rotax582 E box 3.0 to 1.0 Ivo prop. in a KitfoxIV Speedster.
Anyway I have come to the very solid conclusion that the PC625 in itself is
the best way you can go even though I don't yet have mine. So you must have
other problems. First be well aware that your comments re not spinning fast
enough are right on the ball. The CDI units need 300RPM to function. A very
lousy useless idea in my opinion. I may, if my PC625 doesn't solve the
problem, develop a
modification to get spark at much lower RPM. I have made a number of
different CDI's. Of course one must the be more careful when moving the
prop though.
With your battery behind the seat you might well need a thicker cable. A
long lead will drop more voltage and the situation with those 300RPM is
only
agravated. However I suggest you try a car jumper lead across the long
cable
first to see if it then works better before you go to a lot of trouble
changing it. If that doesn't do much try jumping from your starter motor
terminal with that jumper lead to the battery. BE CAREFUL though as the
prop
will spin as soon as you do this. Now if just jumping the cable didn't do
much good but jumping from the battery to the starter does then the
solenoid
is to blame, assuming the solenoid is near the battery. Anyway you see what
I'm getting at is to bridge one bit at a time to see where the lost votage
is. Bear in mind the starter itself could need servicing. Also the
trouble
might not be just one thing but be a number of slight problems adding up. I
hope this gives some ideas to help though.
Be aware also if your not already that the motor can appear to be
cranking
well but not firing. It needs 300RPM not 299 sort of thing. Also at 299 and
not firing it might well be flooding so that if you then get 300 it will
still be reluctant to start although if I then jump start mine it fires
immediately virtually all of the time.
I am interested to solve the 300RPM problem because if one is down in the
bush with a low battery that won't produce 300RPM then one wants to be able
to prop start it. This 300RPM situation is not good enough for a plane
certified or not as far as I am concerned
I wrote to a Rotax service agent and they suggested most were not having
a
problem with the 300RPM but it is becoming apparent that that is not so.
Sorry you got caught with a high price for your PC625. Guess I was
lucky.
Anyway I have put it on list so others don't need to get caught.
Rex.
rexjan@bigpond.com
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! --
|