---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 06/16/04: 23 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:11:36 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: SV: Kitfox-List: New 'Fox on line --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:54:37 AM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: N60Fs flies --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" Way to go Fred! Darrel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Shiple" Subject: Kitfox-List: N60Fs flies > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:07:23 AM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: N60FS still flies --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" Beautiful job Fred. I love the paint job! Where is that strip located? Darrel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Shiple" Subject: Kitfox-List: N60FS still flies > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple > > oh...yeah. almost forgot. pics on sportflight.com under completions. > fred > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 04:21:26 AM PST US From: Grant Fluent Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: N60FS still flies --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent 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 wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:30:38 AM PST US From: Mdkitfox@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: N60Fs flies --> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:25:11 AM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: N60Fs flies --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" 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" Subject: Kitfox-List: N60Fs flies > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:21:31 AM PST US From: "Rod Ewing" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rod Ewing" 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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" > > 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" > To: > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" > > > > 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" > > To: > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox > > > > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" > > > > > > > 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" > > > > To: > > > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox > > > > > > > > > > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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" > > > > > To: "Kitfox List" > > > > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rod Ewing" > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:49:06 PM PST US From: "Paul Seehafer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" 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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rod Ewing" > > 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" > To: > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" > > > > 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" > > To: > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox > > > > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" > > > > > > 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" > > > To: > > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox > > > > > > > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" > > > > > > > > > > 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" > > > > > To: > > > > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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" > > > > > > To: "Kitfox List" > > > > > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rod Ewing" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:15:45 PM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rod Ewing" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rod Ewing" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:00:40 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Kitfox-List: Frozen lakes WAS: Stretch-Fox --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:04:08 PM PST US From: AlbertaIV@aol.com Subject: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:37:24 PM PST US From: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" Subject: Kitfox-List: I hate my plane --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:57:04 PM PST US From: Scott McClintock Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: I hate my plane --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:09:48 PM PST US From: AlbertaIV@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:47:59 PM PST US From: "Jeff Sattin" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: N60FS still flies --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Sattin" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:37:43 PM PST US From: "Daniel Aller" Subject: Kitfox-List: Throttle Control --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Daniel Aller" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:03:32 PM PST US From: Fred Shiple Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: N60FS still flies/strip --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:19:53 PM PST US From: Fred Shiple Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: N60FS still flies/AFS --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:30:57 PM PST US From: "Marc Arseneault" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: N60FS still flies/strip --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Marc Arseneault" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:45:29 PM PST US From: "Andy" Subject: Kitfox-List: AFS Finishing System ? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andy" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:45:51 PM PST US From: "Bruce Harrington" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Stretch-Fox --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:01:07 PM PST US From: Grant Fluent Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: N60FS still flies/AFS --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent 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 wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:12:05 PM PST US From: "Rex & Jan Shaw" Subject: Kitfox-List: Robert re soleniod helping start 582 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" 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