---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 06/24/04: 14 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:30 AM - Re Kitfox w/ 582 (Rex & Jan Shaw) 2. 05:43 AM - Re: Props; was: O-235 Battery (W Duke) 3. 07:08 AM - Re: Props; was: O-235 Battery (jeff.hays@aselia.com) 4. 07:34 AM - Re: Spinners (Kerry Skyring) 5. 11:30 AM - Re: Re Kitfox w/ 582 (Marco Menezes) 6. 12:52 PM - Re: Props; was: O-235 Battery (Bruce Lina) 7. 12:54 PM - fuselage upgrade to Kitfox I,II and III (Mark Schindler) 8. 01:41 PM - Re: Re Kitfox w/ 582 (Fox5flyer) 9. 02:42 PM - Re: Props; was: O-235 Battery (W Duke) 10. 04:21 PM - KitPlanes Magazine Article (Scott McClintock) 11. 04:48 PM - Re: KitPlanes Magazine Article (Don Pearsall) 12. 05:23 PM - Re: Re Kitfox w/ 582 (AlbertaIV@aol.com) 13. 05:26 PM - Re: Re Kitfox w/ 582 (AlbertaIV@aol.com) 14. 07:21 PM - Re: Re Kitfox w/ 582 (Marc Arseneault) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:30:55 AM PST US From: "Rex & Jan Shaw" Subject: Kitfox-List: Re Kitfox w/ 582 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" Marco, I have a MKIV with 582. I have two wing tanks and a header tank behind the seat. Yes basically you must vent the header tank to one wing tank. If you don't you are liable to get fuel flow problems. This is important I promise you. Rex. rexjan@bigpond.com ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:43:38 AM PST US From: W Duke Subject: Re: Props; was: Kitfox-List: O-235 Battery --> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke I never measured mine. It may be 72" also. I just took the designation at face value. I will check next time at the airport. I agree with you on the performance issues. Another problem with this type of experiment is that the spinner may have to be adjusted. Maxwell Bruce Lina wrote: --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Lina" Maxwell, My prop came from Sensenich at the 72" length. Even though the prop designation is 74 '' , it came in a 72 inch length. I think we could do a whole lot better in the TO and climb department with the 2450 RPM that Cliff gets with his O-235/ prop combo. I do not think that those of us with the IO-240/ Sensenich prop combo are utilizing our engines power to its full advantage. Next question is , who is going to spend the 1000 bucks to test my theory? Bruce ----- Original Message ----- From: "W Duke" Subject: Re: Props; was: Kitfox-List: O-235 Battery > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke > > Bruce/Cliff > I have similar static RPM and performance with Bruce. I have an IO240 and same prop except for Bruce's being cut down. Did you have Sensenich cut it for you? I just ordered the prop without any special requests. > > > Maxwell Duke > S6/IO240/Phase II Flight Testing > > --------------------------------- > > --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:08:53 AM PST US From: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" Subject: Re: Props; was: Kitfox-List: O-235 Battery --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" Talked to Sensenich, and they said the prop near the hub area would be the same since they are made on a cnc machine, just the shape of the blade from there on out would change slightly different to accomodate the different pitch. So we would not need to make a new spinner. They wanted the following specs to punch into their computer for designing new prop. Max airspeed, rpm's, altitude, temp. Which they would use for calculating the specs. Cost was about $1K, delivery time estimated 6 wk.s. Jeff Hays Original Message: ----------------- From: W Duke n981ms@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Props; was: Kitfox-List: O-235 Battery --> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke I never measured mine. It may be 72" also. I just took the designation at face value. I will check next time at the airport. I agree with you on the performance issues. Another problem with this type of experiment is that the spinner may have to be adjusted. Maxwell Bruce Lina wrote: --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Lina" Maxwell, My prop came from Sensenich at the 72" length. Even though the prop designation is 74 '' , it came in a 72 inch length. I think we could do a whole lot better in the TO and climb department with the 2450 RPM that Cliff gets with his O-235/ prop combo. I do not think that those of us with the IO-240/ Sensenich prop combo are utilizing our engines power to its full advantage. Next question is , who is going to spend the 1000 bucks to test my theory? Bruce ----- Original Message ----- From: "W Duke" Subject: Re: Props; was: Kitfox-List: O-235 Battery > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke > > Bruce/Cliff > I have similar static RPM and performance with Bruce. I have an IO240 and same prop except for Bruce's being cut down. Did you have Sensenich cut it for you? I just ordered the prop without any special requests. > > > Maxwell Duke > S6/IO240/Phase II Flight Testing > > --------------------------------- > > --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:34:45 AM PST US From: "Kerry Skyring" Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Spinners --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kerry Skyring" Can anyone point us to a manufacturer of an 8" aluminium spinner - with backing plate and hardware - for our Mk5 with smooth cowl and 912S? There are plenty of larger aluminium spinners and an 8 inch fibreglass spinner in the AC Spruce catalogue - but we were keen to have a polished aluminium. Anything much bigger than 8 inch just doesn't seem to fit the smooth cowl. We have a locally made 2 blade wooden prop. Getting closer to flight. This year seems possible. Kerry Vienna Austria > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > > > >--------------------------------- > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 11:30:53 AM PST US From: Marco Menezes Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re Kitfox w/ 582 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes Thanks Rex. How, precisely is your header vent plumbed into the r wing tank? From other responses it seems there is supposed to be a barbed fitting near top of the take at wing root. Mine doesn't have this, probably because rear header was not original equipment on Mod 2. So long as the header tank is vented at some point at or above the highest point on wing tank, does it really matter that the vent doesn't plumb back into at wing tank? It's been suggested that I use a sealable vent valve on header, open it at pre-flight to get fuel flowing then seal it and header will vent through wing tank vent. If it works, this sems like a reasonable solution short of boring and tapping a hole in wing tank. Rex & Jan Shaw wrote:--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" Marco, I have a MKIV with 582. I have two wing tanks and a header tank behind the seat. Yes basically you must vent the header tank to one wing tank. If you don't you are liable to get fuel flow problems. This is important I promise you. Rex. rexjan@bigpond.com --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 12:52:51 PM PST US From: "Bruce Lina" Subject: Re: Props; was: Kitfox-List: O-235 Battery --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Lina" All you guys with the IO-240 here is something to watch out for. I was helping a guy yesterday set up his fuel injection system on his factory built Series 5 ( he bought one of SS demo airplanes in 1998 ) and he told me that he had recently found a crack that was seeping fuel in the main fuel inlet aluminum 45 degree elbow where it enters the engine driven fuel pump ( just downstream of your Earl's fuel filter. I suggest you keep a close eye on this fitting and find a way to secure the fuel line to keep vibration to a minimum. If it breaks inflight bad things will happen! Bruce ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Re: Props; was: Kitfox-List: O-235 Battery > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" > > > Talked to Sensenich, and they said the prop near the hub area would be the > same since they are made on a cnc machine, just the shape of the blade from > there on out would change slightly different to accomodate the different > pitch. So we would not need to make a new spinner. > > They wanted the following specs to punch into their computer for designing > new prop. Max airspeed, rpm's, altitude, temp. Which they would use for > calculating the specs. > > Cost was about $1K, delivery time estimated 6 wk.s. > > Jeff Hays > > Original Message: > ----------------- > From: W Duke n981ms@yahoo.com > Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 05:43:06 -0700 (PDT) > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Props; was: Kitfox-List: O-235 Battery > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke > > I never measured mine. It may be 72" also. I just took the designation at > face value. I will check next time at the airport. I agree with you on > the performance issues. Another problem with this type of experiment is > that the spinner may have to be adjusted. > > Maxwell > > Bruce Lina wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Lina" > > Maxwell, My prop came from Sensenich at the 72" length. Even though the prop > designation is 74 '' , it came in a 72 inch length. I think we could do a > whole lot better in the TO and climb department with the 2450 RPM that Cliff > gets with his O-235/ prop combo. I do not think that those of us with the > IO-240/ Sensenich prop combo are utilizing our engines power to its full > advantage. Next question is , who is going to spend the 1000 bucks to test > my theory? Bruce > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "W Duke" > To: > Subject: Re: Props; was: Kitfox-List: O-235 Battery > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke > > > > Bruce/Cliff > > I have similar static RPM and performance with Bruce. I have an IO240 > and same prop except for Bruce's being cut down. Did you have Sensenich cut > it for you? I just ordered the prop without any special requests. > > > > > > Maxwell Duke > > S6/IO240/Phase II Flight Testing > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 12:54:09 PM PST US From: Mark Schindler Subject: Kitfox-List: fuselage upgrade to Kitfox I,II and III --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mark Schindler This is a very active list. I'm upgrading fuselage on my Avid Flyer MK-IV to a new Avid Plus. Steve Winder of Airdale Aircraft ukav8r@mindspring.com makes those available. They do work on Avid and would work on Kitfox I, II and III. You wouldn't believe the difference you can check mine out at www.avidflyeraircraft.com then click on AVID PLUS link on the left. Elbow to elbow room is more than C-172, all controls are under the seat, has individually adjustable seats, overall is 18" longer, has on ballanced rudder, etc. I'm very happy with what I'm getting - Mark --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 01:41:22 PM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re Kitfox w/ 582 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" Marco, a simple method to vent your header is to fabricate .25"X1" square piece of aluminum to use as a barb fitting mount. Drill and tap a 1/8" pipe thread hole through the center of it then using ProSeal glue it to the inboard high point of the right side fuel tank. Ensure the surface is thoroughly scotch brighted before glueing. When the ProSeal is set up then take a 1/8" drill bit and bore through the tank. This gives you a good surface to screw in a 1/8" barb fitting. Then it's just a simple matter to run a piece of tygon from the header tank to the fitting you installed on the tank. Worked for me on my Model II with wing tanks (which now residing in New Mexico as I understand). Another method is to use a bulkhead fitting instead, but it's rather difficult to get the nut onto in through the filler hole in the tank. Can be done though. Good luck, Darrel > Thanks Rex. How, precisely is your header vent plumbed into the r wing tank? From other responses it seems there is supposed to be a barbed fitting near top of the take at wing root. Mine doesn't have this, probably because rear header was not original equipment on Mod 2. So long as the header tank is vented at some point at or above the highest point on wing tank, does it really matter that the vent doesn't plumb back into at wing tank? It's been suggested that I use a sealable vent valve on header, open it at pre-flight to get fuel flowing then seal it and header will vent through wing tank vent. If it works, this sems like a reasonable solution short of boring and tapping a hole in wing tank. > > Rex & Jan Shaw wrote:--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" > > Marco, I have a MKIV with 582. I have two wing tanks and a header tank > behind the seat. Yes basically you must vent the header tank to one wing > tank. If you don't you are liable to get fuel flow problems. This is > important I promise you. > > Rex. > rexjan@bigpond.com > > > --------------------------------- > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 02:42:58 PM PST US From: W Duke Subject: Re: Props; was: Kitfox-List: O-235 Battery --> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke I will check it. Thanks, Maxwell Bruce Lina wrote: --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Lina" All you guys with the IO-240 here is something to watch out for. I was helping a guy yesterday set up his fuel injection system on his factory built Series 5 ( he bought one of SS demo airplanes in 1998 ) and he told me that he had recently found a crack that was seeping fuel in the main fuel inlet aluminum 45 degree elbow where it enters the engine driven fuel pump ( just downstream of your Earl's fuel filter. I suggest you keep a close eye on this fitting and find a way to secure the fuel line to keep vibration to a minimum. If it breaks inflight bad things will happen! Bruce ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Re: Props; was: Kitfox-List: O-235 Battery > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" > > > Talked to Sensenich, and they said the prop near the hub area would be the > same since they are made on a cnc machine, just the shape of the blade from > there on out would change slightly different to accomodate the different > pitch. So we would not need to make a new spinner. > > They wanted the following specs to punch into their computer for designing > new prop. Max airspeed, rpm's, altitude, temp. Which they would use for > calculating the specs. > > Cost was about $1K, delivery time estimated 6 wk.s. > > Jeff Hays > > Original Message: > ----------------- > From: W Duke n981ms@yahoo.com > Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 05:43:06 -0700 (PDT) > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Props; was: Kitfox-List: O-235 Battery > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke > > I never measured mine. It may be 72" also. I just took the designation at > face value. I will check next time at the airport. I agree with you on > the performance issues. Another problem with this type of experiment is > that the spinner may have to be adjusted. > > Maxwell > > Bruce Lina wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Lina" > > Maxwell, My prop came from Sensenich at the 72" length. Even though the prop > designation is 74 '' , it came in a 72 inch length. I think we could do a > whole lot better in the TO and climb department with the 2450 RPM that Cliff > gets with his O-235/ prop combo. I do not think that those of us with the > IO-240/ Sensenich prop combo are utilizing our engines power to its full > advantage. Next question is , who is going to spend the 1000 bucks to test > my theory? Bruce > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "W Duke" > To: > Subject: Re: Props; was: Kitfox-List: O-235 Battery > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke > > > > Bruce/Cliff > > I have similar static RPM and performance with Bruce. I have an IO240 > and same prop except for Bruce's being cut down. Did you have Sensenich cut > it for you? I just ordered the prop without any special requests. > > > > > > Maxwell Duke > > S6/IO240/Phase II Flight Testing > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Maxwell Duke S6/IO240/Phase II Flight Testing --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 04:21:39 PM PST US From: Scott McClintock Subject: Kitfox-List: KitPlanes Magazine Article --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock Hey Guys, Remember a couple of weeks ago when were were being asked about financing our planes for an article? Anyway, as my experience with financing the "Arctic Fox" was a little unusual, I gave this gal my story. Well, it turns out that they liked my story so much they are going to print it as a sidebar. (With a picture of my handsome self to boot) So be looking for it in Sept. or Oct. issue of KitPlanes. Scott in Nome P.S. Grove is sending me my "restored to new" spring gear next week. I already beefed up my tailwheel mounts with some larger bolts and the VGs will go on when the gear gets back. Fred is selling me his S6 flapperons and they will begin their journey here soon as I send him a check. If anybody is considering new landing gear, I highly recommend Grove. They have been doing me very right, even though I am not the original buyer of the gear. Fixin' for free and they call me back when I call to check progress. Grove Aircraft LGS, Inc., El Cajon, CA. They have a great web site. DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 04:48:26 PM PST US From: "Don Pearsall" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: KitPlanes Magazine Article --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" Way to go Scott! I will be looking for the article and the photo of your handsome self. When that Kitplanes hits the stands, be sure and remind us that you are in it. Don Pearsall ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 05:23:42 PM PST US From: AlbertaIV@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re Kitfox w/ 582 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com In a message dated 6/24/04 11:32:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time, msm_9949@yahoo.com writes: > sealable vent valve on header, open it at pre-flight to get fuel flowing > then seal it and header will vent through wing tank vent. If it works, this > sems like a reasonable solution short of boring and tapping a hole in wing tank. > > I'm going to go out on a limb a here. First off, there is most likely "NO" boss fabricated on the inside of the wing tank to support drilling and tapping a vent fitting. That fiberglass is real thin and won't support pipe threads. If you go with drilling and tapping, you will need to fabricate a 1/4" boss on the outside of the tank to support the tapping. On the other hand, it has been reported that early Avid headers did not have a vent to the wing tank. If they did, it was vented near the top of the header and only needed during initial fill of the header. I'm not real sure about this statement. If you had a vent for initial fill and pre-flights that only extended to the top of the seat (for example), this would always insure the header was full. If you installed 3/8" supply lines, the header will vent through these lines. It would probably vent OK with 1/4" supply lines but, 3/8" would be better. You are in a situation where you are changing the original design. As usual, this should be done with precaution. I did some testing with fuel flow and found that the header will vent through the supply lines. However, a "CONTINUOS" downhill installation of the fuel lines is mandatory. IMHO Don Smythe ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 05:26:47 PM PST US From: AlbertaIV@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re Kitfox w/ 582 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com In a message dated 6/24/04 1:42:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, morid@northland.lib.mi.us writes: > Marco, a simple method to vent your header is to fabricate .25"X1" square > piece of aluminum to use as a barb fitting mount. Drill and tap a 1/8" pipe > thread hole through the center of it then using ProSeal glue it to the > Yes, the "BOSS".... Don Smythe DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 07:21:24 PM PST US From: "Marc Arseneault" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re Kitfox w/ 582 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Marc Arseneault" Marco, Don has given you real good advice on how to install your vent line/fitting. I hada fuel flow problem a little while back and rectified it by installing a vent line directly into my panel tank as opposed to having it "T" off with my wing tank fuel supply line and by installingtwo primer bulbs on my fuel supply lines from the wings.(One bulb on each wing fuel line.)Two squirts on the primer bulb and the fuel flows really good. I have a friend who did the same thing and he has since put over 300 hours on his plane without any fuel flow problem. Best Regards, Marc Arseneault Ontario Canada ======================================================= Help protect your entire PC with Virus Guard from MSN Premium Get Two Months FREE*